Search results

If "others" understand what you're saying, I wish they would come forward and explain it to me, because, all I've seen is your statement that Man's appearance on Earth is the result of "materialization from pure potentiality." Reads like instantaneous creation to me (i.e., magic).

Wow, nice demonstrating of the passive/aggressive ad hominem attack that I was just describing. Thanks for the "admission," Z. Only...wouldn't be easier to just answer the question and clearly explain what it is that you actually propose as your personal scientific theory of ID? Or, could...

(You edited your former post, so I'll now respond to it a second time.) Your arguments "exist," eh, and you don't simply "spout a party line"? Maybe so, but no one will ever know what your arguments are until you spell them out so everyone else can consider them. Back to the biology...

Well, fella, you keep saying that I am "falsely" attributing things to you, or making "defamatory" statements, and when I call bullshit on you, all of a sudden you shrink away and pretend that you're the only person who could ever possibly be injured by the comments of another. However, any...

No, sorry, the ID that you have suggested, and the ID that you continue to suggest is the ID that is advocated by the Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, and William Dembski, et. al., because that is the ONLY ID argument that currently exists. And THAT argument REQUIRES INSTANTANEOUS change...

Mr. Pat, may be a political sage, but after reading this editorial, he is not (in my humble opinion) able to reason from a scientific viewpoint. Evolution does not ask for a belief in miracles. As I have pointed out dozens of times previously, evolution doesn't even deny the existence of God...

As you wish, Mr. Z. Our conversation is ended.

OK, well, then let's all of us get right back on point then shall we, Mr. Z? You walked away from the previous discussion, without answering my direct question, and I submit that you are now trying to bury your inability to answer with a pile of irrelevant documentation. So I'll repost my last...

Send me your personal contact information via PM, I'll be happy to forward it to to Judge Jones with links to your recent posts, and we can all perform a scientifically verifiable test of your theory that "no reasonable person" could construe your posts as libelous.

I do not want to be associated with promoting your political agenda. The judge in the Kitzmiller case was not of jewish descent or disposition. No one else made the decision that Intelligent Design is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause other than Federal Judge John...

Thanks jem. The fact that the Catholic Church apparently has no official position on whether or not life developed over time, confirms that a Roman Catholic is free to debate the question, without threat to his/her underlying beliefs. And, if a biology curriculum wants to state as a matter of...

Where did you claim instantaneous creation? Right here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=934054&highlight=pure+potentiality#post934054 (scroll down to the phrase "pure potentiality," highlighted in red) Edit: You edited your post and added comments, so I'm editing...

The Big Bang theory has an enormous amount of supporting scientific physical observations, including background radiation and expansion measurments that help to solidify the theory. All of the tests generally support each other -- consequently OTHER competing theories of the universe (e.g...

The federal court decision concerns two issues, regarding the proposition of Intelligent Design: 1. ID is a religious doctrine, because it rests on the premise that species arise in nature as a consequence of a non-natural creator. 2. ID violates the establishment of religion clause of the...

Define species and we can talk. Until you do, there's no way to discuss whether Lenski's tests prove what you describe as macro evolution. There is no demonstrated biological threshold to how far, or in what direction, mutation of DNA can carry an original germ line. The concept of intra...

The effect of the Big Bang can be methodically tracked back to a central location within the known universe. Biological design cannot be tracked back to Breakfast this morning. As for what you personally believe about God, that is precisely the issue. Your personal beliefs don't belong in a...

Your "proclaiming" that ID is measurable, is not the same as proposing a test by which ID can be measured. Unless and until you propose a test, ID is not science. Richard Lenski currently conducts actual tests of evolutionary processes by growing strains of e-Coli under laboratory conditions...

If ID was provable by resort to natural causation, then it wouldn't be religion, it would be science, and I believe that scientists everywhere would rush in to conduct research on the subject matter, because that research would lead them directly to the discovery of the identity, location, means...

OK, if as you propose, God is natural, then ID (and God, as well) is scientifically measurable. So, you shouldn't require inductive reasoning to test your theory -- you should be able to propose a scentific test that will isolate that which is designed from that which is not. If you can, you...

First, you are assuming that the universe came from nothing. There's no proof that it did or didn't. Second, for the moment, ignoring the what came before the universe question, once you have the big bang, you have matter and energy, and the consequences that follow are that certain reactions...