| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 04:00:08 AM |
| Object: |
Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
The supporters of Intelligent Design, reject the theory of evolution
despite the massive amount of evidence which supports it.
They even demand to see evidence that supports evolution and reject it
out of hand when it is presented to them.
But where is their proof that life came into being as a result of a
supernatural influence?
They have none, but because they reject evolution, they claim ID is
automatically right without presenting anything to support it.
Why is this?
Can anyone offer an explanation?
Before any creationists get on their high horses and accuse me of being
an atheist, I am not.
I was born into the Catholic Church in 1958, raised in the faith for
all of my informative years.
I still attend church regularly and even read my Bible on a fairly
frequent basis.
However the Catholic schools I attended taught all the sciences as well
as ensuring that we had regular religious instruction and attended
church during the week, said prayers every morning at school.
The faith was there but so was science, and not one teacher be they of
the cloth or not had any problem combining the two.
That is my background.
.
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 09:58:34 AM |
|
|
"On 25 Oct 2005 02:00:08 -0700, in article
<1130230808.446462.141000@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 stated..."
The supporters of Intelligent Design, reject the theory of evolution
despite the massive amount of evidence which supports it.
They even demand to see evidence that supports evolution and reject it
out of hand when it is presented to them.
But where is their proof that life came into being as a result of a
supernatural influence?
They have none, but because they reject evolution, they claim ID is
automatically right without presenting anything to support it.
Why is this?
Can anyone offer an explanation?
[...snip...]
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
But the basic problem is not that they don't have any evidence
for "design". The basic problem is that there is nothing specific
about what a "design event" might have been like. So we can't tell
what might count as evidence for it, because we don't know what
sort of thing we're supposed to have evidence for. We wouldn't know
even if we saw it happening right before our eyes, because there is
no description of it. Nobody seems to be even interested in talking
about the difference between a "design event" and any ordinary,
"non-design" event.
There is a long history of the pro-evolution people complaining
about the lack of an alternative. At least as far back as Herbert
Spencer, in his 1852 essay, "The Development Hypothesis". However,
in recent years, it seems that all substantive content - such as
the "young earth" - has been removed.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 01:28:36 PM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
But the basic problem is not that they don't have any evidence
for "design".
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
The basic problem is that there is nothing specific
about what a "design event" might have been like.
So we can't tell what might count as evidence for it,
This he says, while demanding not to have to answer to the
problem of the disproved abiogenesis, claiming that it's not
part of evolution and yet, demands that the ID believer,
explains everything, all the way back to and including the
creation event and everything about it.
As for "might have's", you've got plenty of those. In fact,
that's all you have, when it comes to your faith.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The "end timers" believe in a physical kingdom here on earth
and think that death being conquered is talking about our
physical death. I have a question then, using the two verses
that they always quote and knowing that the Bible doesn't
contradict itself...
"There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not
filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old;
but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised."
- Isaiah 65:20
"And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there
will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will
there be any more pain; for the first things passed away."
- Revelation 21:4
So which is it? Will the child die 100 years old? Or will
there be no more death? One or the other is true, but both
can't be true. So either they are taking symbolism literally
and misunderstanding the verses, or the Bible contradicts
itself. I know which one I believe. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 07:54:37 AM |
|
|
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:36 GMT, in article
<q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
I fail to see how this shows that I have misrepresented anything.
Some of the advocates of ID do accept - just to take one example -
the common ancestry of humans and other primates.
Whether hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution
have proceeded as according to standard science - I haven't seen
this explicitly stated by advocates of ID, but it seems that
someone like Behe would accept this. All of the usual examples of
"irreducible complexity" are features that are shared by large
divisions of the world of life: The blood-clotting system of
mammals being one of the least widely shared.
But the basic problem is not that they don't have any evidence
for "design".
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
The basic problem is that there is nothing specific
about what a "design event" might have been like.
So we can't tell what might count as evidence for it,
This he says, while demanding not to have to answer to the
problem of the disproved abiogenesis, claiming that it's not
part of evolution and yet, demands that the ID believer,
explains everything, all the way back to and including the
creation event and everything about it.
As for "might have's", you've got plenty of those. In fact,
that's all you have, when it comes to your faith.
Could you give just a bit of information about what a
"design event" might be like - what the difference is between a
"design event" and anything else that happens in the world of
life - what we might observe if one were to happen right now -
what is there "before" and "after" a "design event" takes place -
something or other to describe what people are talking about,
when they speak of "design"?
Only when we get some idea of what the "alternative" might
be, can we begin to discuss what kind of evidence there could
conceivably be for it.
Even if evolutionary biology is massively in error, that
doesn't mean that any of the possible alternatives are true.
Particularly an empty alternative - one that doesn't say
anything at all.
What is your alternative?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 12:36:31 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 05:54:37 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:36 GMT, in article
<q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
I fail to see how this shows that I have misrepresented anything.
Some of the advocates of ID do accept - just to take one example -
the common ancestry of humans and other primates.
Goody for them. That makes it true? Majority opinion seems
to be all you have. Too bad for you, huh?
Whether hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution
have proceeded as according to standard science - I haven't seen
this explicitly stated by advocates of ID, but it seems that
someone like Behe would accept this. All of the usual examples of
"irreducible complexity" are features that are shared by large
divisions of the world of life: The blood-clotting system of
mammals being one of the least widely shared.
Who cares what behe accepts? The fact is, that Behe knows
that abiogenesis is a fantasy and that macroevolution is a
fantasy.
Could you give just a bit of information about what a
"design event" might be like
This you ask, without being able to show how abiogenesis
happened.
--
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
27 Oct 2005 06:59:29 AM |
|
|
"On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:36:31 GMT, in article
<7hfvl15c2l4477l2nnopeem6hlt11b6kqt@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 26 Oct 2005 05:54:37 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:36 GMT, in article
<q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
I fail to see how this shows that I have misrepresented anything.
Some of the advocates of ID do accept - just to take one example -
the common ancestry of humans and other primates.
Goody for them. That makes it true? Majority opinion seems
to be all you have. Too bad for you, huh?
No, I did not say that because some of the advocates of ID
accept this, that makes it true.
What I was saying is that some of the advocates of ID accept
large parts of evolutionary biology.
I do not believe that I was misrepresenting them.
Whether hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution
have proceeded as according to standard science - I haven't seen
this explicitly stated by advocates of ID, but it seems that
someone like Behe would accept this. All of the usual examples of
"irreducible complexity" are features that are shared by large
divisions of the world of life: The blood-clotting system of
mammals being one of the least widely shared.
Who cares what behe accepts? The fact is, that Behe knows
that abiogenesis is a fantasy and that macroevolution is a
fantasy.
Again, I am merely pointing out that many of the advocates
of ID accept large amounts of evolutionary biology.
Could you give just a bit of information about what a
"design event" might be like
This you ask, without being able to show how abiogenesis
happened.
This I ask.
Could you enlighten us on what a "design event" might be like?
I said that the main problem with "intelligent design" was
that there was not any suggestion about what a "design event"
might be like. That, as long as the advocates of ID show no
interest in questions about the Who, What, Where, When, Why, or
How; as long as there was no hint about what the difference was
between something which is "designed" and something which is not;
as long as there was no investigation into the consequences or
implications of "design" - then we are a long, long way from
resolving "Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design?"
Even if there were no evidence at all for anything in
evolutionary biology, this would not mean a thing for a
supposed "alternative". How do you exclude other alternatives?
But this is particularly relevant for ID, because ID does not
represent an alternative.
It is no alternative for (at least) two reasons:
1. According to many of its advocates, it is consistent with much
of evolutionary biology.
2. It does not offer anything of substance.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
27 Oct 2005 03:58:26 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7hfvl15c2l4477l2nnopeem6hlt11b6kqt@4ax.com...
On 26 Oct 2005 05:54:37 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:36 GMT, in article
<q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
I fail to see how this shows that I have misrepresented anything.
Some of the advocates of ID do accept - just to take one example -
the common ancestry of humans and other primates.
Goody for them. That makes it true? Majority opinion seems
to be all you have. Too bad for you, huh?
Whether hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution
have proceeded as according to standard science - I haven't seen
this explicitly stated by advocates of ID, but it seems that
someone like Behe would accept this. All of the usual examples of
"irreducible complexity" are features that are shared by large
divisions of the world of life: The blood-clotting system of
mammals being one of the least widely shared.
Who cares what behe accepts? The fact is, that Behe knows
that abiogenesis is a fantasy and that macroevolution is a
fantasy.
Behe apparently doesn't know his ***** from a tree stump. Want
evidence? You might read the cross examination.
Could you give just a bit of information about what a
"design event" might be like
This you ask, without being able to show how abiogenesis
happened.
These would appear to be unconnected, Pester Dave. Regardless
of the state of knowledge of abiogenesis, surely the IDiots could
give us a little scientific description of a "design event." How about
you help 'em along, here?
Deadrat
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 02:24:20 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 05:54:37 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
"On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:36 GMT, in article
<q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave stated..."
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
I fail to see how this shows that I have misrepresented anything.
Some of the advocates of ID do accept - just to take one example -
the common ancestry of humans and other primates.
Goody for them. That makes it true? Majority opinion seems
to be all you have. Too bad for you, huh?
Wrong on three counts: it doesn't *make* it true, it's not *all* we
have, and it's not "too bad for us." That's three strikes, time for
the next batter.
What it shows is the fallacy of your claim that you have to be a
God-hating atheist, or something similar, in order to accept common
descent. People at all ends of the religious spectrum (except possibly
the extreme narrow-minded fundamentalist end) are able to look at the
evidence and accept its testimony on behalf of God's evolutionary
design for biological life on earth. And it's a very intelligent
design, which is why it's such a natural fit for ID advocates (or at
least those who are not preconditioned to reject it).
Whether hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution
have proceeded as according to standard science - I haven't seen
this explicitly stated by advocates of ID, but it seems that
someone like Behe would accept this. All of the usual examples of
"irreducible complexity" are features that are shared by large
divisions of the world of life: The blood-clotting system of
mammals being one of the least widely shared.
Who cares what behe accepts? The fact is, that Behe knows
that abiogenesis is a fantasy and that macroevolution is a
fantasy.
He *knows* no such thing. He may have been taught to believe
creationist traditions along those lines, but objective real-world
knowledge of those ideas is not available for him or anyone else to
literally know. What, he was an eyewitness? Where was he standing?
Could you give just a bit of information about what a
"design event" might be like
This you ask, without being able to show how abiogenesis
happened.
Translation: why no, Tom, I haven't the foggiest, but unlike you I
won't admit what I don't know. Scientists may freely admit that they
don't know (yet) how abiogenesis came about, but if you ask me to offer
so much as a reasonable hypothesis that would let you define what ID
theory *is*, neither I nor anyone else can do so. But if you try to
suggest that we *have* no ID theory, just listen to us cry, "Help!
We're being oppressed!"
m
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 05:19:52 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com...
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Always good to hear from the pig-ignorant crowd.
You blabber and claim to make sense.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Macroevolution and microevolution are precisely the same thing. If you
disagree, explain precisely what the difference is.
But the basic problem is not that they don't have any evidence
for "design".
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
Since "macroevolution" is just something you made up, that may be true. On
the other hand, there are massive amounts of evidence of evolution over long
periods of time, involving changes to many characteristics and producing new
species. How much more evolution could anyone possibly want?
The basic problem is that there is nothing specific
about what a "design event" might have been like.
So we can't tell what might count as evidence for it,
This he says, while demanding not to have to answer to the
problem of the disproved abiogenesis,
What "disproved abiogenesis"?
claiming that it's not
part of evolution and yet,
It's not part of evolution. That said, the scientist admits he doesn't *yet*
know how it happened, and investigates real possibilities in a scientific
fashion. The IDiot merely asserts that his god designed something and
pretends that's a satisfactory answer.
demands that the ID believer,
explains everything, all the way back to and including the
creation event and everything about it.
It would be a massive change if the IDiot could explain *anything at all*.
Please, give it a try. You'd be the first.
As for "might have's", you've got plenty of those. In fact,
that's all you have, when it comes to your faith.
How do you know anything at all about his faith?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 03:19:07 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com...
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Yeah, that's "Pastor" Dave's job.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Ooops, false assertion. Try again.
But the basic problem is not that they don't have any evidence
for "design".
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
How about the vairious lines of evidence from the fossil record, the genetic
record, Biogeography, Biostratography, Molecular analysis, and Biochemcial
analysis? Why don't they count as evidence?
The basic problem is that there is nothing specific
about what a "design event" might have been like.
So we can't tell what might count as evidence for it,
This he says, while demanding not to have to answer to the
problem of the disproved abiogenesis,
Where has abiogenesis been disproved? Can you cite any experiment that has
disproved the concept?
claiming that it's not
part of evolution
It's not, it's a separate, but related field.
and yet, demands that the ID believer,
explains everything,
Where did he ask the "ID believer" to explain everything? He asked for an
example of what a design event might have looked like.
all the way back to and including the
creation event and everything about it.
Dave apparently didn't get the memo.... you aren't supposed to connect ID to
the "Creation event". It's very hush hush..
As for "might have's", you've got plenty of those. In fact,
that's all you have, when it comes to your faith.
Ah, Dave, always the hypocrite.....
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tygrinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 03:02:10 PM |
|
|
(sorry for the mispost, something went wrong)
(for the sole purpose of Christian tradition and legibility, I refer to
God as a 'He', please take no offense.)
Dear Pastor Dave, SJAB and all other readers and posters,
First of all, I don't like throwing mud at other people... nor do I
think it helps in any way to 'win' a conversation like this. I
personally believe - and this is one of my very few beliefs - that this
is a matter of probability, not proof.
I do not think there is a God, nor do I think there isn't one. But I
think, in the end I have to admit it's very unlikely that there is one.
The Gift of Free Will
---------------------
I have a question for Pastor Dave: How high do you hold your 'free
will'? Personally, I think it's a wonderful gift. The best gift life
(or God) could have offered me. At least, it remains so as long as I am
alive. Because, wouldn't it be very difficult to have millions and
millions (so we all hope) Christians running around in Heaven... still
having a free will?
Heaven is supposed to be a place with all the good stuff from this life
- with some extras - and none of the bad stuff. So upon our arrival in
Heaven, God would have to warn us, that we can basically do whatever we
like, as long as it's something good. That's only half-free-will... or
maybe slightly less... somewhat-free-will... sounds awfully like:
not-at-all-free-will...
Of course you could argue, that a cleansed soul (in total absence of a
devil), would only want to do good stuff. Very much true, I won't deny
that. But I have learned, even in my short life, that even in doing
good - the best you can possibly imagine doing in your situation -
there can always be hurt. God himself probably experienced this in
saving the drunk Noah, his family and their zoo, but killing the rest
of the known population.
I don't want to bore (or entertain) you with all the examples like
Noah's, also because I don't think they really matter. (It's about the
global idea of being unable to do good without hurting someone or
something)
Thinking about all this leaves me with no other conclusion that there
are two possible scenarios for the free will in heaven question:
1. There's no free will in Heaven.
2. There's nothing to do in Heaven.
Either we 'live' a perfectly organized existence in Heaven, directed
from above, which never leads to conflicts or we sit around all day,
with our eyes and ears shut, at arms length from each other doing
absolutely nothing, which never leads to conflicts...
Neither scenario seems very appealing to me, honestly... Therefore I
not only think it very unlikely that there is a Heaven as described in
the Bible,...
....I also dearly hope there isn't.
- To Be Continued.
Thank you for reading, with honest respect,
Tygrinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 04:39:06 PM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 13:02:10 -0700, "Tygrinn"
<tygrinn@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
(sorry for the mispost, something went wrong)
(for the sole purpose of Christian tradition and legibility, I refer to
God as a 'He', please take no offense.)
Dear Pastor Dave, SJAB and all other readers and posters,
First of all, I don't like throwing mud at other people... nor do I
think it helps in any way to 'win' a conversation like this. I
personally believe - and this is one of my very few beliefs - that this
is a matter of probability, not proof.
I do not think there is a God, nor do I think there isn't one. But I
think, in the end I have to admit it's very unlikely that there is one.
The Gift of Free Will
---------------------
I have a question for Pastor Dave: How high do you hold your 'free
will'? Personally, I think it's a wonderful gift. The best gift life
(or God) could have offered me. At least, it remains so as long as I am
alive. Because, wouldn't it be very difficult to have millions and
millions (so we all hope) Christians running around in Heaven... still
having a free will?
Does this have anything to do with proving macroevolution?
No, didn't think so.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The "end timers" believe in a physical kingdom here on earth
and think that death being conquered is talking about our
physical death. I have a question then, using the two verses
that they always quote and knowing that the Bible doesn't
contradict itself...
"There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not
filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old;
but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised."
- Isaiah 65:20
"And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there
will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will
there be any more pain; for the first things passed away."
- Revelation 21:4
So which is it? Will the child die 100 years old? Or will
there be no more death? One or the other is true, but both
can't be true. So either they are taking symbolism literally
and misunderstanding the verses, or the Bible contradicts
itself. I know which one I believe. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 02:11:50 PM |
|
|
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
This he says, while demanding not to have to answer to the
problem of the disproved abiogenesis, claiming that it's not
part of evolution and yet, demands that the ID believer,
explains everything, all the way back to and including the
creation event and everything about it.
No, we don't demand that the ID believer "explain everything, all the way
back to and including the
creation event and everything about it." Something resembling positive
evidence would be nice, actually required, if it were to be called science.
You make a nice "strawman" argument though.
JR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 04:38:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me, you are too stupid
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The "end timers" believe in a physical kingdom here on earth
and think that death being conquered is talking about our
physical death. I have a question then, using the two verses
that they always quote and knowing that the Bible doesn't
contradict itself...
"There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not
filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old;
but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised."
- Isaiah 65:20
"And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there
will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will
there be any more pain; for the first things passed away."
- Revelation 21:4
So which is it? Will the child die 100 years old? Or will
there be no more death? One or the other is true, but both
can't be true. So either they are taking symbolism literally
and misunderstanding the verses, or the Bible contradicts
itself. I know which one I believe. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
27 Oct 2005 03:46:19 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b9tl1dkbjvjtgdvi5sok4det49ct46fq5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me,
No, no, Pester Dave. He's not ridiculing you. He's making fun
or your foolish arguments. *I'm* ridiculing you.
you are too stupid
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
And you would know this, how?
Deadrat
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The "end timers" believe in a physical kingdom here on earth
and think that death being conquered is talking about our
physical death. I have a question then, using the two verses
that they always quote and knowing that the Bible doesn't
contradict itself...
"There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not
filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old;
but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised."
- Isaiah 65:20
"And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there
will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will
there be any more pain; for the first things passed away."
- Revelation 21:4
So which is it? Will the child die 100 years old? Or will
there be no more death? One or the other is true, but both
can't be true. So either they are taking symbolism literally
and misunderstanding the verses, or the Bible contradicts
itself. I know which one I believe. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 05:40:13 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b9tl1dkbjvjtgdvi5sok4det49ct46fq5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing? I look at evidence or lack thereof. I did not
intend to attack your faith, sir; I was mearly pointing out the obsurdity
of labeling a well-accepted scientific theory as a "fantasy". I will try to
be more gentle next time.
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me, you are too stupid
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
I also did not call you names. And I never ridiculed you. I ridiculed your
argument--which I stand by.
JR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 07:24:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:40:13 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b9tl1dkbjvjtgdvi5sok4det49ct46fq5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me, you are too stupid
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
I also did not call you names. And I never ridiculed you.
Sure ya did. Every time you claimed that you believe what
you do because of science and every time you claim that
ID'ers have no science behind what they do.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The "end timers" believe in a physical kingdom here on earth
and think that death being conquered is talking about our
physical death. I have a question then, using the two verses
that they always quote and knowing that the Bible doesn't
contradict itself...
"There will not be an infant, nor an old man that has not
filled his days. For the child will die a hundred years old;
but the sinner who is a hundred years old will be despised."
- Isaiah 65:20
"And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there
will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will
there be any more pain; for the first things passed away."
- Revelation 21:4
So which is it? Will the child die 100 years old? Or will
there be no more death? One or the other is true, but both
can't be true. So either they are taking symbolism literally
and misunderstanding the verses, or the Bible contradicts
itself. I know which one I believe. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 08:42:36 AM |
|
|
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
Again, what faith am I doing?
Hint: you cannot answer this question with a personal attack. Please just
answer the question.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me, you are too stupid
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
I also did not call you names. And I never ridiculed you.
Sure ya did. Every time you claimed that you believe what
you do because of science and every time you claim that
ID'ers have no science behind what they do.
What names did I call you by attacking your argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 12:30:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:42:36 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
Again, what faith am I doing?
Hint: you cannot answer this question with a personal attack. Please just
answer the question.
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
--
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 12:57:06 PM |
|
|
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
Again, what faith am I doing?
Hint: you cannot answer this question with a personal attack. Please
just
answer the question.
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
--
There is no faith involved in what I believe. I see evidence which leads me
to conclude that evolution is a valid theory. If evidence counter to
evolution is shown to be convincing, then I will accept whatever theory that
may be. I see no reason to accept anything based on faith alone. I suspect
that you do, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I will only argue with your premise that there is zero evidence for
macro-evolution. That's false. We have posted many citations showing you
the evidence that we speak of. You have dismissed all of it...but have
addressed none of it. All of your arguments contain the fallacies of
Arguementum Ad Ignorantiam and ad Hominem. If you are not willing to
discuss things critically, well, then, no one will take you seriously...
JR
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 03:05:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
Again, what faith am I doing?
Hint: you cannot answer this question with a personal attack. Please
just
answer the question.
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
--
There is no faith involved in what I believe. I see evidence which leads me
to conclude that evolution is a valid theory. If evidence counter to
evolution is shown to be convincing, then I will accept whatever theory that
may be. I see no reason to accept anything based on faith alone. I suspect
that you do, and there is nothing wrong with that.
There are two assumptions hiding out but there nevertheless.
1. There is a world external to our senses and wills and independent of
our existence.
2. The laws of physics are universal and uniform everywhere and
everywhen. This cannot be derived from simple induction since we have
only seen the tiniest fraction of the cosmos. Without this assumption we
could not coherently understand what we see through our telescopes.
These are very reasonable assumptions and furthermore they are
necessary. Without them there would be no science to do. So believing
that these two assumptions are true is unlike believing that the
scriptures are inerrent (they are full of error and contradiction) and
believing in G-D (for which there is not an iota of empirical evidence).
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 02:20:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:57:06 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
There is no faith involved in what I believe.
Okay. Whatever you say.
I see evidence which leads me to conclude
that evolution is a valid theory.
The repeated claim, which is never shown to be true.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 03:53:04 PM |
|
|
On 2005-10-26 12:20:17 -0700, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:57:06 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
There is no faith involved in what I believe.
Okay. Whatever you say.
I see evidence which leads me to conclude
that evolution is a valid theory.
The repeated claim, which is never shown to be true.
Yes.
It.
Has.
But you are a liar, and a poor witness for Christianity, so why should
you be accorded credibility?
--
oink@porkfilled.com
Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 02:28:15 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:57:06 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
There is no faith involved in what I believe.
Okay. Whatever you say.
I see evidence which leads me to conclude
that evolution is a valid theory.
The repeated claim, which is never shown to be true.
Translation: no matter how many times you show me your evidence, no
matter how many university textbooks it is published in, no matter how
many cures for medical disorders are based on it, no matter how many
museums display it, I will still deny that it is evidence for
evolution, that it is evidence at all, and that it even exists. I
believe, therefore I deny.
m
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 02:14:00 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:42:36 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
Again, what faith am I doing?
Hint: you cannot answer this question with a personal attack. Please just
answer the question.
You are playing dumb. You believe in macroevolution and
life from non-living matter, by chance. That takes a lot of
faith and certainly more than I have.
What if he only believes that microevolution continues without anything
to stop it? Does that take faith? Or suppose that microevolution
continues and he doesn't know of anything that can stop it? Does that
take faith? If microevolutionary changes continue long enough without
anything stopping them, what happens? An inch may not be a mile, but
if you get enough inches together they are.
By the way, speaking as a theist, I'm curious: what is this "chance"
of which you speak? Is this supposed to be something outside of God's
will?
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 01:38:36 PM |
|
|
news:l7fvl1l1358ip842sqv1k4b9fdt45jdii6@4ax.com by Pastor Dave:
Please just
answer the question.
You are playing dumb.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
26 Oct 2005 12:33:04 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:40:13 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
"Pastor Dave" <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b9tl1dkbjvjtgdvi5sok4det49ct46fq5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
What faith am I doing?
And now he plays dumb.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me, you are too stupid
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
I also did not call you names. And I never ridiculed you.
Sure ya did. Every time you claimed that you believe what
you do because of science and every time you claim that
ID'ers have no science behind what they do.
If ID'ers do science, Dave, why have they not put forward any
scientific theory of intelligent design?
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Creationists do not need logic, we believe what God tells us to
believe."
--B_Sharp (Talk.Origins 2004-07-09)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
28 Oct 2005 12:09:42 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:11:50 GMT, <jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net>
spake thusly:
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
Fantasy? But an invisible man in the sky is....???
And there it is. When you are forced to admit to yourself
that you believe in a fairy tale, attack someone's faith,
all the while, denying that you believe what you do by more
faith than the person you are criticizing possesses.
Most people have more faith than you, or you wouldn't feel compelled to
lie about science.
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
This is not a problem because it is just creationist propaganda.
There isn't ANY evidence? Don't you mean, "there isn't EVERY PIECE of
evidence" ? Even the most devout fundamentalists argue that there "are
gaps", rather than there is ZERO evidence.
I mean you're stupid. I mean that is obvious, because while
you keep posting messages ridiculing me, you are too stupid
Nasty and hateful again, I see.
to figure out that others notice that they don't contain
this "mountain of evidence" that you falsely claim exists.
Calling his claim false is a lie on your part. What will you tell
Jesus?
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 05:22:48 PM |
|
|
In message <q4usl1lsks22jbfg0ra0lppgv7m1itsfku@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes
The biggest problem is that you don't have any evidence for
macroevolution and yet, claim to.
Would you be so kind to explain why observations of speciation are not
evidence for macroevolution.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
27 Oct 2005 12:48:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:36 GMT,
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 07:58:34 -0700, TomS
<TomS_member@newsguy.com> spake thusly:
By the way, some of the advocates of ID do accept large parts
of evolutionary biology. It's just that they want to have "design"
to be responsible for *some* of the variety of life. Some may
accept that all of the last couple of hundred million years has
been adequately explained by evolutionary biology. (Although I
haven't seen that explicitly stated.)
You misrepresent and then claim to be honest.
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
You'd better tell Michael Behe about this, PD.
Ah, I get it. You didn't know that ID says nothing of any substance at all,
and are under the delusion that it supports your Creationist fantasies in
some special way.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Jay" |
|
| Title: Re: Where's the Evidence for Intelligent Design? |
25 Oct 2005 01:49:31 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
Microevolution is a fact of science.
Macroevolution is a fantasy.
What evidence do you have that proves there is a mechanism for
preventing evolutionary changes from proceeding beyond a certain point?
Also, where is that point that you claim divides evolution into two
parts?
Lee Jay
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
CORRECTED energy e=mass*c^2=(mol part)*K*Volt*length/c^2; Where *length* CAN BE *UNiT* volume/surface area quotient, DiAMETER/6 for a SPHERE, EDGElength/6 for a CUBE and Tip-to-Tip DiSTANCE/6 for a TRiAKiS-icosahedral CORE CRYSTAL (20 lattice-unit ce
where can I hear someone reading Bible for free
Re: Where is the proof (for the bible and/or christianity?)
Who IS running this bushite nazi liar show?, where they, our *elite* corporate media masters, kill our stupid kids with their flagrant naked monster lies, while refusing all calls for clarity, Johnny America really wants to know. Li
Looking for a Girl Whose Favorite Great Book is The Bible, Or Moby *****, or Shakespeare's Hamlet : Where or Where Can My Baby Be? The Good Lord Took Her Away From Me.
Where the love of law is
Re: Mother Theresa: Where Are Her Millions?
WHERE DO YOU GO TO CHURCH?
| Where are the women Creationists?
Where expectation comes from
Where can I find help ?
But where are the pictures ???
If the bible is all of gods word -- then where do you find?
Where is our American greatness?
WHERE THE HELL IS THIS LOVING, CARING GOD ?
|
|
|
