yeah whatever. I think you over played the threats and hate dude. They won't work. As if contradiction and absurdity was not enough, your religious beliefs are also offensive. They were constructed for use against the more gullible like yourself , who are susceptible to threats and fear. It is not a pretty sight. Chill man, too much animosity. Or you're going to remain in your personal hell of sticks and holes forever.
so your god only knows how to use childish anger to show himself? i thought he was a great god. when do we get to the point where you threaten to "kill the unbelievers"?
Gather 'round boys and girls and let me teach you what to look for in articles that support "evolution" or "disprove" ID or any other nonorthodox theory. In this particular article there are two real gems: "It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity." "But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23." How nice. You have all these components lying around and through the magic of time, mutution and natural selection...voila a complex machine appears. How a "scientist" can be comfortable with such vagueness as this is beyond me. Irreducible complexity does not say that components can't be broken down further, but rather that components as they get smaller become more complex, and that the removal of any one would cause the "machine" to become useless. I have a lot of junk lying around in my garage. My hope is that it will "simply be a matter of time" before the pieces rearrange themselves into a red Lamborghini.
you could educate yourself but that would probably mean you have to give up you mythical fable in the book so i guess that would be too uncomfortable for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Too bad I missed this thread early on! Theologist, very good thread and well presented. You are correct in that ID <> C. The Darwinist set allows for the self instantiation of fully sentient and fully corporeal beings, as a simple matter of bio-mechanical alchemy with a mathematically random substrate as the 'logic engine' from which all intelligent life on earth is now seen. Not Biblical. The Intelligent Design set, as you clearly point out, has no problem whatsoever with 'a creator,' but is open to the idea that the source and origin of such a creator, could be from a logically derived arrangement of bio-mechanical processes that over time, yield the potential for the creation of fully sentient and fully corporeal beings, or an infinite number of other non-Biblical arrangements that fulfill the 'need' for a creator to fit their belief system. Not Biblical. I would assume that your reason for making this differential between the ID set and the Creation set, is to highlight and contrast the distinctions for those that might not have a Biblical grounding and who might be susceptible to getting confused about the differences between the two and for that, you are to be commended. Sadly, there will be many who fall prey to the illusion that ID = C. Having said that, I think that if one is going to make such a distinction (that between ID and Creation) for the purpose of ONLY dealing with the question of how life on earth began, then it would seem that one would miss the opportunity to extend the logic to its fullest conclusion by extrapolating backwards and clearly articulating the logic AND substance for the existence of the Universe itself as having been "created" by a single source. This of course, is not the topic of your thread, but your chosen topic does beg the question in a rather tantalizing way! I don't want to turn the tone and tenor of your thread, so I'll leave it at that unless and until you give authorization to move your thread in that direction, for I believe, as an empiricist myself, that there is PLENTY of both physical and logical evidence for the existence of a single source Creator (notice the capital 'C' used here and not above) for the Universe in which our planet resides. In fact, I believe that using very simple mathematics (a given tool), one can easily establish the logical framework that not only assumes the existence of a single source Creator for the Universe and thus all life on earth, but actually proves it beyond any logical doubt. Whose logic exactly, is the question yet to be answered. Awesome thread!
Vhehn, Will you be so kind as to answer this single question, please: Does Absolute Truth Exist? It is a fairly straight forward question and the answer you give will say a lot, one way or the other. I'll not pull any punches here with you, so I'll tell you right up front that it is a trick question, but NOT in the sense of an attempt to trip you up. This singular question never fails to baffle the Evolutionist and/or the Atheist.
I'd say don't sweat it. From what you have just posted I think you would have just added more nonsense to the heap Tele supplied. And if you're proposing a big "C" then whether you deny it or not, that's Creationism, in one guise or another. ID proposes a -Creator- therefore ID is Creationism
yes in Mathematics. you know its hard for you bible thumpers to make the case that id is not creationism when all of the proponents of id are also creationists. do you expect us to believe that a creationist would represent something that did not fit their religious belief.
Sorry vhen, but not even mathematics is sacred. Mathematician Kurt Godel discovered that in math there are some propositions that can't be proven based on inherent axioms of the system. You can go outside mathematics to attempt to prove it, but then you'd be creating a larger system with its own set of unprovable propositions. I don't think there is any absolute truth in the physical world. From a posivist perpective, you can only come up with models that SEEM to explain phenomena...but eventually those models may be shown to be incomplete, inadequate or even wrong.