Search results

How different is science from the Bible? Let me suggest to you if Science were only the theoretical explanation of phenomena you say it is, non of us would be posting on this forum. Don't you see where your simple analogy is directing you? In science there is no real need to rely on what...

Your analogy was not difficult, just crummy. In your analogy you have a guy lost in the desert. He can only see desert. You ask "Why do you choose to believe what others wrote on a map before you were born when your own eyes do not see what the map shows ?" So the map does not show...

Dude, the travelerr prepared his journey properly., remember? He didn't just take the word of others, his own certainty was based on personal experience. He is able to put each to the test, in experimental use for quality and reliability, In likewise fashion, why don't you respond to the...

Only 1 (the story book) requires faith. The other 2 require a certainty based on past experience. The question was, which one do you choose to get out the desert into town when your life depends on it?

Using a Bible as a road map will be what got the guy lost first off. Now all he sees with his own eyes is desert. With no bearings and in order to reach the nearest town, his life depends on either the Story Book, the road map, the satnav. Which would you "blindly" choose?

Neither. Having prepared for his journey properly, he used satnav.

Oh Iam, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends. Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, So Iam, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

QUOTE by Teleologist: While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons Projecting your own tacticts onto others doesn't wash. QUOTE by Teleologist: Thus, if we label Behe a theistic evolutionist, we tap into this common...

Seriously Tele just what the hell are you talking about now? You are trying to assert origins by something you call intelligent design, for which you have no explanations whatsoever other than to assert it must be because Evolution as demonstrated by Darwin can't account for "machines". All...

QUOTE by Teleologist: "Behe applies IC not to species but to molecular machines" QUOTE by Teleologist: "Behe doesn't reject any observable feature of evolution" You may have missed this... Those "machines" are complex biochemical systems. They are observable features of the...

Alright Tele, let's look a little closer at what Dawkins is saying ...... Dawkins says there are three parts to Darwin, only one of which Behe says he will accept.. Dawkins shows how Behe rejects Evolution in its entirety which leaves Behe in denial of the Theory as a whole. Creationism...

erm, your belief that belieef is obsolete... "is only employed in realms of illusion" jeez jesus, you are still the hippiest of hippies dude.

Oh come on now Tele. Don't start denying Behe is a creationist again. Trying to defend Behe is futile. He has already condemned himself to creationism in everything he says and particularly by his book "Darwin’s Black Box / The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" The whole of Behe's...

"Creationism denies the theory of the evolution of species" So both here and in the OP you aren't really in agreement with that definition of creationism. That definition it appears is conditional upon your own personal definition of it. Well, at least you are being consitent in using the...

Already done Tele, but anyway let's do it again... Creationist - one who accounts for the origins of life through the literal belief all creation was by God as portrayed in the Bible's Book of Genesis. Creationism denies the theory of the evolution of species. Crick and Orgel do not...

Real? A fictional literary cosmic hippy jewish character in a story book, who Christians say is God and therefore would have sacrificed himself to himself, after previously creating the first man from magical dust and then magically making a woman from a rib he took from the man, so that rib...

And I'm saying you are disregarding things which are known about the Universe which lead to well suported reasoning toward its origins. There is no indication that any of it was put there by an Intelligent Designer / God /Santa. Just as with Santa, the ID explanation can be supplanted by more...

Then accordingly, "Designer" / God does not have any direct observations and that fact has never been contradicted by observations. Santa has rational alternatives whilst ID / God does not.. +1 for Santa. You suddenly switched the priority for your reasoning. Don't you mean, a Designer can't...

What makes me laugh is the infantile thought process which causes jem to state on one hand.... Susskind "as one of the great minds of science" proposing landscape / or countless other universes , thus eliminates an "Intelligent Designer" But if this "great mind of science" is wrong, then...

So we can just agree to agree.