Search results

OK, if what you believe doesn't change reality, then reality is not subject to alteration by faith. Thus, only science exists. Yet you claim to believe that the Bible is literally true, which is faith contradicting science. Seems to me that you accept a dual reality based on your faith. This...

LOL. He's just jerking you off, buddy. He couldn't care less about ID, creationism or anything else. He just wants to keep you fighting with him, because that's how he maintains his superiority over others. Happy Holidays.

Does this mean that you accept that God has created a dual reality which accomodates the existence of both the Antideluvian age of the Bible and geological science? Or, do you have a scientific explanation for the many contradictions between Biblical and scientifically derived conclusions...

The proof of non-teleologic origin is that this theory is simpler than the teleologic theory. Proposing the existence of a designer, requires that an organized intelligence with infinite power has always existed, while proposing no designer merely requires that organization can occur by...

Yes, God suffers from vanity. He's too sexy for this universe.

This post is another pure appeal to authority. No hypothesis, no test. Nature doesn't look designed to me. When I view the landscape from an aircraft, I can see the design of cities, visible from the obvious symmetrical nature of the construction. But where the city runs up against the...

This statement is gobledygook. Can you actualy propose a hypothesis inferred from design which can actually be tested? If so, then state the hypothesis.

Here's a bit of magic: I close my eyes, and concentrate. Two numbers appear before me -- a gift from my personal deity, the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracle tells me that only you will know the meaning of these two numbers, so I will present them to you now: 154852 24025 Am I possessed of the...

This is the sort of post I was talking about. Completely absent of any analysis, appealing to authority, misinterpreting another person's opinion so as to make an entirely different point than the original author intended, and non-responsive to the substantive issue. Neo, if you have a third...

Don't be stunned. The ignorance which pervades the average person is beyond question. The theist is genetically predispositioned to believe in God. It's evolutionarily selected as a mechanism to maintain order and thereby maintain the species continuum. This entire thread folds up into two...

Defendant

Yes, I did. I came back, because I found you typically annoying -- which of course is your great talent in life. But, since you've now degenerated into infantilism, I no longer need to demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever about the subject of the thread, because you've just proved it...

Where did you get that beautiful post-modernist dialectic sentence? That's incredible!

RESPONSE IN CAPS... You can continue to recite your mantra that "random ignorant chance is just a theory, because ID cannot be ruled out," but the only person you'll ever convince of this is yourself. No sane person would conclude as you are concluding. It is exactly the same as saying...

The above conclusion is yours, and not that of Susskind. Susskind's conclusion is: "somewhere in the megaverse the constant equals this number: somewhere else it is that number. We live in one tiny pocket where the value of the constant is consistent with our kind of life. That’s it...

This is a Nobel Prize winning post.

Nope. Yours is the argument from ignorance. My argument is based on the non-existence of a designer, so if I argue that the universe and its constituent parts appear inadequately designed, this supports my theory that it is the result of random chance. Furthermore, because my argument is...

My post is directly on point, and the point is that the statistical and observed evidence overwhelmingly favors random evolution in preference to any intelligent thought process. Furthermore, your intelligent designer doesn't appear very capable at avoiding problems in his designs. Your...

Randomness is assumed in exactly the same manner as circles are assumed to be round -- via statistical measurement within stated limits. Your belief that somehow this makes evolution equivalent to pulling a rabbit out of a hat is simply incorrect. Q: Take a million randomly selected hats...

I had to read it twice to understand your thought stream. I haven't investigated any recent peer reviewed science that finds that environmental stress effects germ cell DNA in any predictable manner. I don't discount the possibility, however. Assuming you're correct, then living organisms...