Search results

Dembski says ID is creationism. Why shouldn't people believe one of the founders of the ID theory, instead believe an anonymous poster on ET?

Lol, sounds exactly like an ID theory to me. Now I know why conspiracy theories are so prevailent in this country. :D

Never ascribe to malintent what can perfectly be explained by stupidity. Bush is stupid and lazy. He was on vacation and ignored all the warnings. Not on purpose for some strategic consideration, but from sheer stupidity. The fact that he benefited immensely from the event only proves the...

Always able to find a silver lining, aren't you? :D Here is the time stamp of file for the essay I quoted: [TXT] wd_theologn.htm 10-Sep-2006 07:45 42k He put it up there last Sept. It doesn't look like he is giving up on the idea. You'd better find another authority to appeal...

You're misunderstanding/misinterpreting science, just like the creationists do when they find science disagree with them. Has there been a historical precedent that scientific community is collectively involved in conspiracies/cover-ups? Never. Publications on peer-reviewed scientific...

Third part...

Second part of that ad...

Here is an ad by China Telecom - pretty funny if you weren't an American...

I am amazed at all the idiocy displayed here. Why don't you guys/gals take a look at what scientists have learned so far about the WTC? The scientists have no motivation to hide any data (their scientific reputation is much more important than someone's political agenda). A very cursory search...

Finally, some sanity returns. I'm all for tax hikes to eliminate the budget deficit. Compared to the lives lost in Iraq, a few extra thousand dollars is the least I can do for my country. Where is your patriotism?

Ok, Let's quote William Dembski then: His full essay is here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm Your authority on ID has stated clearly in this essay that ID is firmly on the creationist side of the creation-evolution debate. What do you say?

Is that an indirect way of admitting that you don't have a case?

Let's see what the star witness on your side, Prof. Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, UK, says about ID: So he says that ID is not creationism. But wait, So he says it is creationism. Did he get confused by all the masquerading? :D Full transcript is...

Who is Edwards? The "dead boy, live girl" fame? I didn't know he's still alive.

A good read: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html That's the plaintiff side. Now take a look at the defense side: So even the defense (proponents of the ID) admitted in the court that ID is in fact creationism.

When the car salesman says, "I'm not making money on this..." When a Bush defender says, "I don't like Bush..." When a conman says, "I'm not after your money..." What's the first thing one suspects?

This is typical characteristics of a "false teacher" that Jesus Christ himself had warned against. You have deviated so far from His teachings that you don't even know you're spreading Satan's message.

I have seen you repeat this claim numerous times, but you have not backed it up with anything concrete. Please present your case and let us analyse it. Otherwise admit you don't have a case and give it up.

Zion had been destroyed and rebuilt five times. It would've been destroyed the sixth time if not for Neo. He refused his preplanned role and used mutual destruction as a threat to negotiate a truce with the Machines, and saved Zion. Where is the controversy?

Even if you're willing to subject God to constant scrutiny and doubt by scientific inquiry, it is not the proper thing to do. The argument for separating faith from science, is not just to protect science from religious muddling. It is also to protect religion from constant questioning and...