Ivan. You make up a story, with your own plot, with your own definitions of the characters, you make it suck, then say it’s true, then offer me a choice based on that?

At my post above, the synopsis is that of a sci-fi story by Isaac Asimov, not my own.

People on this site grab some old testament story, comment on it and how it defines their conception of God while revealing little or no understanding of the passage in hand, and then use such illogic as a rationale for rejection of the “amoral designer”.

What are you implying; that the Bible is written in some secret code that only “True Believers™” can understand?

I’m trying to figure out where the biblical God who so loved the world that He gave His only Son to save it went.And Jesus, who claimed to be deity, God in the flesh, and an accurate portrait of His Father in heaven, the one who taught to love above all things, to sacrifice, to give, to be humble,……where did He go?

The same place where these other mythologies went.

Y’all present such a myopic one sided view of what the bible teaches that, just as you doubt that I understand evol, I have serious doubts that you even read, much less understand, scripture.

Now, Chuck, don’t get me started again on ‘interpreting’ scripture!

Hint: Click on the center one.

Where are those crickets of yours?

Anyway, again, why don’t you give me your definition of science, and I’ll answer according to that.

Apparently you did not read my posts. I gave you a definition for science. Here it is again for you:

When I use the term “science”, here’s what I mean: the process of making observations of some phenomena, developing hypotheses to describe/explain those phenomena, developing predictions based on the hypotheses to point toward future observations, testing those hypotheses/predictions against additional data and observations to see if the hypotheses/predictions hold up to additional data and observations, and revision or elimination of the hypotheses as needed due to the testing. Further, the hypotheses that are developed must be able to be falsified if new data comes along.

As to people touting the humours as valid medical science, I was drawing a comparison between your apparent stance on why ID is science (“some scientists say that it’s science”, essentially) and why that does not make it science. The comparison seems to have been lost on you.

Even Crick, Hoyle, and yes, even Dawkins, when pressed, all fall back on some type of panspermia theory to explain how life started here.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing evolution vs. ID, not origins of life. There is a distinction.

So, back to my original questions. I await your answers. Please be brief and on topic.

Well, it’s about a brilliant but psychologically disturbed physicist, Elwood Ralson, who becomes convinced that humanity is a kind of genetics experiment being run by an alien intelligence. His behaviour becomes more erratic and suicidal as his thoughts become more entrenched in this idea, and his health fails.

He claims that the aliens want him to die before he can help produce a defence against atomic weapons, since a defence against atomic weapons would protect humanity against an extinction at the hands of the aliens, and humanity, analogous to bacteria when faced with the advanced technology and power of the aliens, would have developed an immunity against the penicillin that the aliens use to control the experiment.

Under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr Blaustein, Ralson is able to provide guidance to the scientists carrying out the research. Once the experiment is complete and the defence — a force-field generator — is built and tested, he commits suicide.

So then, Chuck, maybe there is an ‘Intelligent Designer’ out there, somewhere, and we are nothing more than an evolutionary ‘genetics experiment’ — mere ‘bacteria’ on some frigging alien ‘petri dish’ to be flushed down the bloody toilet when their funding runs out — and the next part of the experiment, since we have disappointed the aliens by not nuking ourselves as they had expected us to do, is that they will slam an asteroid/comet into the Earth, as they did to the dinosaurs, in order to see if we use our ingenuity to survive where the dinosaurs had failed.

Think about it, Chuck… which would you prefer: an amoral ‘Intelligent Designer’ with a purpose, or an amoral evolutionary process without a purpose?

Your posting was superfluous. No mention was made by me of scientists touting the humours as valid medical science, so I see that as the typical “raising the straw man” I encounter on this site continuously.

Do you really need me to explain to you what science is? As I asked, which definition do you want me to use. Why don’t you pick one, the one most recited in science classes, and I’ll try to answer you. At least part of science, in my humble understanding, is observation. If you encounter something incredibly complex, irreducibly so, then why is it unscientific to posit design as one, and just one, possibly explanation? Even Crick, Hoyle, and yes, even Dawkins, when pressed, all fall back on some type of panspermia theory to explain how life started here. Even they feel compelled by the utter lack of scientific support for spontaneous generation to grasp for answers (which, as I have stated before, don’t really answer the question, and just bring up more questions). Why don’t you laugh at them, or challenge the scientific validity of such suppositions? Do they get a pass just because they are evoluionists? Anyway, again, why don’t you give me your definition of science, and I’ll answer according to that. Then I won’t have to chase around answering questions you didn’t ask. Thanks.

I only attempted to deal with your first question

And yet, you didn’t really answer it, unless you meant that ID is science because some scientists support it. It was hard to tell what your answer was, though, couched as it was in a lengthy diatribe complaining about the discussion. I think this was the part where you actually answered (or tried to):

ID theory, at least from scientists, if offered with a scientific basis, with scientific arguments. That is why it should be allowed in a science class.

The rest of your post was superfluous. So, some people who happen to be scientists offer it with a “scientific basis” (uh, what scientific basis?) and with “scientific arguments” (what arguments?)? This does not answer how it is a science. If some Nobel Prize winning biochemist started touting the humours as valid medical science, it still would not be science, just because he was using sciencey arguments. I think you’ll find by answering the other questions I asked will clarify whether ID actually is science or not.

Please, be brief and leave the complaints to other postings. Simply answer the question.

Why do you guys keep using the “you don’t understand evolution” tact.

Tact?

The reason I keep pointing out that you do not understand evolution is that you continually make serious errors when you try to describe evolution. When someone cannot repeat back to me, in his own words, what we are talking about, that is evidence that he does not understand what he is talking about.

You keep describing something that is not evolution.

Are you assuming that if I understood it I would have to believe in it?

One step at a time. I do not know what it would take for you to understand evolution. It is not belief, but understanding. After months of conversations, you still keep ignoring the basics of evolution. You keep claiming that you understand. Then you repeat your original misrepresentations.

The logical conclusion is that you are either incapable of understanding, or that you are just interested in creating disinformation. In other words that you are incapable of telling the truth.

And whose version of evolution?

Certainly not that of the frauds at the Discovery Institute.

Since you can’t keep even the basics straight, why should we even begin to discuss any of the controversies of evolution, none of which discredit evolution. All science has controversy.

Again, not the imaginary controversies dreamed up be the DI frauds.

There are differences among evol believers.

Evolution is not a belief. It is science. Of course, the way you misrepresent it, you make it whatever you want. Your misrepresentation does not make it true.

Many id scientists believe in evolution.

ID Scientists?

What kind of a nonsense phrase is that? ID Scientist is an oxymoron.

You speak blithely about the “odds against God” without offering any example or research. Have you read somewhere where someone actually figured out the odds, or are you just making it true by saying it is.

You are the one who stated that the odds of a plane appearing intact in the middle of nowhere are astronomical. How are they less astronomical for a perfect God, or even your deformed version? Or are you saying that God is less complex than the universe?

Either the complexity of God is an even greater than evolution, and therefore the odds of God existing are even more unlikely, or evolution is more complex than God.

I am not the one who has difficulty with large numbers. You are.

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’”

Why do you guys keep using the “you don’t understand evolution” tact. Are you assuming that if I understood it I would have to believe in it? And whose version of evolution? There are differences among evol believers. I know what you believe. I just use hyperbole to make a point. And sorry, I just don’t buy the arguments. You seem to think that it is obvious that evolution has occured. Well, I think that it is obvious that the universe is filled with design, and no Todd, not just “apparent design”, but design and complexity that evolution cannot account for. So I do the obvious, as I’m sure you think you do, and believe in a designer. I’m not the one going against the obvious. You think that by posing the question “where is proof of a designer (eliminating evidence of design, of course)”, that you have refuted something. Not at all. Science, for example, can account for only about four percent of the universe. So you come up with somethings called dark matter and dark energy. You don’t see them, you don’t really know for sure it’s there (it just has to be), yet you believe in it. Because there are things we see and know that seemingly can’t be explained without them. So it’s okay to only see an indicator, or apparent evidence of something, and without really knowing for sure, give it a name and accept it as truth. That is science. Fine. I see things that can’t be explained without a designer. I can’t see him, I don’t know for sure if he’s really there, but I don’t think this universe can be understood without Him. So I give Him a name (God) and accept Him as true. You call that religion. OOOOOOOOkkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyy. I see.

So things progress serially. Really. Show me. Irrefutably evidence. Don’t you know that’s why Punctuated equilibrium as an explanation came about. There is no prove of this gradual evolution, serial progression. And there should be thousands and millions of them. You escape the charge that we are not observing any at the moment by arguing that is is so gradual and takes so long that we can’t recognize it. Nigget above deals with the paucity of transitional fossils by arguing that ALL fossils are transitional fossils, the first time I’ve encountered that “argument”.

You speak blithely about the “odds against God” without offering any example or research. Have you read somewhere where someone actually figured out the odds, or are you just making it true by saying it is.

I’m not sure where you keep coming up with your “God has to check with the interpreters” line. I have stated before that if God had wanted to use evolution as His method, that would not bother me at all. I don’t care. He can do whatever He wants to. He is God, after all. I just don’t believe anyone has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that that is what He used. Many id scientists believe in evolution. They also believe what science and the bible point out…the universe had a beginning. The big bang. Where did the matter come from? That made this huge universe? What power held it in check (and scientists acknowledge that the laws of physics we see today could not have been in effect at that time). I believe God created it out of nothing (that is what the bible says “ex nihilo”, out of nothing. He held it together. It is wearing down. That is what the TWO Laws tell us. It is also what the bible tells us…”the firmament..will wear out”. Way back when most civilizations believed the universe was eternal and gave birth to the gods, the Hebrews taught that the universe was not eternal, and God gave birth (created) to the universe.

And how, exactly, would you figure the odds of God having always existed. What method would you use. What would your parameters be. Show me the money. I have given you numbers for evolution. Figured out by evolutionists. Who still, in spite of impossible odds, still believe in evolution. That is faith. Again, as defined in the bible, faith is “the substance of things hoped for, things unseen”. I place no more faith in my God than you do in your evolution. Faith is religious. Whether the object of belief is a supreme being or some process, faith is religious. I can’t “prove” that God exists. I wouldn’t know where to begin. If He does, and exists outside of His creation, I’m not sure any methods we could devise would be valid, anyway. In my mind, you have not “proven” evolution. Lots of theories. No indisputable proof. How would you disprove evolution, anyway? Would proof of design do the trick? Is that why there is such an uproar about it.?

Anyway, thank’s for coming.

. . . your reference to the “developement” of the Pentium processor being developed in small incremental steps. Did you regret that one after you gave it, or did you not realize that no one left the Pentium(hey, where did it come from?) lying on a table where over millions of years it developed into what we have today. Of course not, you were pulling my leg. I mean, we all know it was originally designed, by a designer, and other designers improved on it. Not chance. Not mutations. And not time. DESIGNERS.

Well, since you are so convinced of “Intelligent Design”, then you may find this article interesting.

Thank you for finally addressing some (though not all) of my questions, though you did go on at great length beyond merely answering my questions, as I asked.

When I use the term “science”, here’s what I mean: the process of making observations of some phenomena, developing hypotheses to describe/explain those phenomena, developing predictions based on the hypotheses to point toward future observations, testing those hypotheses/predictions against additional data and observations to see if the hypotheses/predictions hold up to additional data and observations, and revision or elimination of the hypotheses as needed due to the testing. Further, the hypotheses that are developed must be able to be falsified if new data comes along. With this definition in mind, would you care to refine your answer at all? I’m still not clear on how you think that ID is science.

Just because a scientist (which ones, by the way?) believes something does not make it “science”. To state that is to make an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Regarding my analogy, why is it different than the eye (you still don’t seem to understand that the eye is not irreducibly complex; that it can come about by a stepwise process – read the wikipedia article on the eye again)? Both structures are incredibly complex. Both can come about by stepwise processes. If I had said that the pile of rocks was pyramidal in structure, would that give the appearance of design you suggest? And does the lack of apparent design mean that it wasn’t? The pile of rocks could be the result of very careful planning and hard work by one or more individuals, so that, while it may not have the appearance of design, it was. Alternatively, it may have the appearance of design (e.g., having sides of equal length, with a very specific ratio between the height and width of the structure, etc.) yet be the result solely of rocks falling downhill, off a cliff and landing together.

The main problem, as I see it, is that ID tends to argue from a perspective of personal incredulity (another logical fallacy). For example, looking at the eye, they see the appearance of design, have an a priori impression that something so complex could not possibly come about by chance or any other method besides purposeful design, and so conclude that some intelligence must have devised it and put it together. And that is where any further inquiry stops. However, if the person were to look around for other clues (e.g., other eye forms, DNA comparisons, etc. in the case of the eye, or scrape marks on the hillside above, broken foliage, other rocks strewn nearby, etc., in the case of the pile of rocks), they may come to other conclusions and find evidence that more clearly points to natural causes.

A quick note on irreducible complexity. Even if it the eye were irreducibly complex (again, it’s not – take away the cones and it still functions as an eye; take away the rods and it still functions; take away the lens and, guess what, it still functions – just not necessarily as efficiently as it otherwise might), that still does not prove design. It says nothing about who or what the designer is, nothing about the process of how he/she/they/it came up with the design, nothing about how the design was implemented. We’re left only with “someone, somewhere, somehow did something and now we have an eye.” It’s akin to saying that the only reason we don’t go flying off the planet is because some invisible, unmeasruable, multi-limbed being is pressing down on our heads.

Also, your protestations about those who accept evolution hate or fear or whatever ID/Creationism, Christians and the Christian god are unfounded. Evolution does not preclude belief in a deity. It does not rule out a deity from having some role in the development of life. Heck, there was one fellow involved in the Dover trial on ID who, in addition to being someone that accepts evolution as a fact also happens to be a Christian. You mention that scientists are being persecuted for believing in ID. Which ones? Please provide names and how they are being persecuted. Before doing so, though, I suggest going to the Expelled Exposed web site (http://www.expelledexposed.com/).

Another suggestion is to visit Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/).

Back to my main points. Again, what is scientific about ID? People with PhDs writing their religious beliefs down in a paper, using scientific terms, does not mean that it is science, remember. There is a process (see above) and features that separate science from pseudoscience.

I never stated that God is imperfect. I stated that the Creationist version of God is imperfect, being restricted to some human’s interpretation of what is written in a Bible.

A God having to ask, Interpreter, May I? is not a God worth worshiping. Such is the
God of the Creationist sects.

I have not attacked the Bible, only the misinterpretation of the Bible by Creationist sects.

The FEDERAL govt. could not interfer or endorse any religion.

That has been expanded to the states.

14th Amendment (section 1):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over others – establishing any one religion, such as that of the Creationist sects, over other religions. That means that the teaching, in science class, of the religion of Creationist sects, at the expense of other religions, is not permitted. The odd thing is that these Creationist sects insist on imposing their religious view on others. It is fortunate for those who are not members of these Creationist sects, that there is a Supreme Court to make these decisions. They do not seem to agree with your misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Yes the Constitution is the protector of religion. The Constitution protects members of religions that are not politically powerful from those who are politically powerful.

Well then, if you’re capable and qualified to judge God, then that must make you(drum roll) an even GREATER god!!!! Good luck with that one.

I am not the one creating artificial restrictions for God. You and the other members of Creationist sects are the ones engaging in that blasphemy.

ID is not science. ID is only a ploy by the deceitful to get Creationism into the science classroom.

Do you accuse id scientists of being incapable of applying rules of observation in their studies? If they think they see design, should they just clam up and toe the party line? They really wouldn’t be scientists then, would they? You know, the ones who toe the party line just to get along, or continue their grant money. Those people probably stopped the process of objective observation a long time ago.

Why is it science? I’m trying to think of an answer that would satisfy you, seeing as how you guys seem to reject any statement by an id’er or religious person. I can only offer that it is scientists, while practicing science, who claim to see design. Maybe they’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s not science. The purpose of science is to discover things, and answers, and should be objective, open to any possible answers, and then through experiment and study zero in on the most probable answers or causes. My problem with most of you is that you no longer want to allow for this process. You have already decided the answers that make you comfortable, and usually attack with much venom any one who comes along to challenge them. Think of how useless science would have been if consensus had always ruled the day. But then you go further, with name calling and insults, even going so far as to intimate that they’re not REAL scientists, or are stupid ones, because they see things differently than you do (not necessary you, Todd, but in general).I’ve been asked “where is all their research and peer reviewed work”? First of all, tell me with a straight face that a scientist can go to a mainstream scientific journal and get anything published that purports to show scientific evidence of a designer. You and I know it ain’t happening. And then if word got around where this particular scientists was coming from, and how far off the party line(secular, humanist,atheistic) he had strayed, it really would be a miracle if he was allowed to retain his position at a school or university. There are examples of scientists experiencing just this type of persecution. All because they have a different viewpoint.

What is so frightening about allowing students to hear both sides of the story? Why do you and the others just get to arbitrarily decide there is only one, and all others are outlawed? You evolutionists can present all of your so-called evidence and state that it points to chance, random events, mutations, etc. ID’ers can then present all of their so-called evidence, and state that they believe that it all points to some sort of design and thus a designer.To act as if there is no basis for their argument is specious at best. Your rejection of it is not proof that it isn’t correct. Good science should consider all reasonable possibilities, and I don’t think seeing design is unreasonable. In some of the material I’ve read, that conclusion makes much more sense than attributing it all to chance. You don’t need me to list it all for you. Just go to one of those intelligent design sites you accuse me of using (not once in all of my interchange with you guys have I ever visited such a web site. Never) and see for yourself why they believe what they believe. In the books I have read, I never got the feeling these scientists were just being stupid or unscientific. They give reasoned arguments. Arguments, if used in regards to anything in which we know the identity of a designer, that would not even be challenged. They would seem to state the obvious.

However, if these arguments seem to be heading in the direction of a designer of life, then what seemed quite rational before now becomes idiotic. The humanist scientists use fear and name calling to cover the real problem- they don’t want to believe in design, because then the logical conclusion leads to a designer, i.e., God. Hide behind all the jargon you want to, but that is really the fear. The vehemence and insults reveal, at least to me, the uncontrollable reaction the consensus, shall we say, has against even the contemplation of a god, or first cause.

And yes, I certainly have read id and creationist literature. What I read is always based on science and scientific methods. Their arguments against the consensus are given with scientific reasons undergirded by scientific observation. These men, all with phd’s, and even some with scientific awards, including the Nobel, are not simpletons. Calling them such may make it easier in your world to ignore them, but they are not what they are often made out to be. I personally could not believe in design and God if it were soley based on religious reasoning (although many christians would say I should believe solely on that basis). I cannot do that. If evol scientists (and many id’ers are still evolutionists, as far as the continuing processes are concerned) had clearly proven their case, I would have to accept it even if it went against my religious beliefs(many many christians do just that). I do not, however, see the proof. I see just as much faith in evolution as I do in religion. And I’m sorry, but when I see the designs inherent in nature, my rational mind tells me that it makes far more sense to accept what is clear, rather than believe in something that causes more questions that answers, and then can’t really address the questions it has raised.

ID theory, at least from scientists, if offered with a scientific basis, with scientific arguments. That is why it should be allowed in a science class. Though to some it may ultimately lead to a designer, if that is where the evidence takes you, there’s no harm in going there. To use the possibility of a “designer” as cause to disqualify alternative ideas is not scientific at all. You have already decided what is NOT an acceptable answer, and will reject any evidence that points in that direction. That is not science. It’s more like the close-minded christians you guys often refer to. To the degree science is used in id theory, it belongs in the science classroom. To the degree evolution incorporates faith and belief in the unseen, it belongs in the religion class.

Next question later.

Again, cutting through all the ranting (and note that I said I did not excuse the behavior of others – much as I agree with what kuhnigget [not "nigget"] says, I feel he can get rather out of line and should also not be insulting or rude), I see that, yet again, you have not answered a single question I posed to you. Here they are again, in case you forgot, with numbers this time for easier reading:

1) Exactly how is ID/Creationism science, and why should it be taught in science classes?
2) Please inform us of what, as far as you understand, is the supposed theory?
3) What predictions does that “theory” make?
4) What research has been done and where can that research be found?
5) How can it be falsified?
6) If ID/Creationism is not religion, then who or what is the Designer and where can we find evidence of its existence?

I’ll actually add one more question that occurred to me:

7) Once we find evidence that purports to show the existence of a designer, how can it be determined that it points exclusively to a designer, rather than some other phenomenon?

You bring up examples of TVs, computers, etc. for design by intelligent beings. Where your example fails, however, is that we have ample evidence to point to those designers. We can see the very people engaged in the act of designing and building something. We have ample evidence of people (to whom we can point and even touch) currently creating things and can extrapolate from that people in the past (who we cannot touch) creating things. The same thing does not exist for a designer.

Let me give you an example of how the mere presence of complexity is insufficient to claim a designer was involved. Suppose you come upon a pile of rocks near the base of a cliff. This pile is incredibly complex. Change the position of or remove a single stone, and the whole structure could change or collapse entirely. Looking at this pile of rocks, is it the result of design or the result of a series of occurrences with no intelligence behind them? And, I’m talking about the final result (the pile) just as IDers/Creationists talk about the final result (the animal/organ), rather than any initial starting point.

Regarding transitional fossils: did you even bother to look up Tiktallik, as was suggested way up toward the top of the thread? It’s a recent example, which just happened to be found by using evolutionary theory to figure out where it would likely be and what it would likely look like.

In closing, please just answer my 7 questions above. I’m not interested in your feelings of persecution of either yourself or Christians in general. I have not been insulting. I have not called all Christians idiots. I have just asked for answers to a few questions, which you have repeatedly ignored. So, in your response to me, please just stick to answering those seven questions.

And why do you guys think the constitution prohibits the practice of religion? Seperation of church and state? Nowhere in the constitution. That clause was for the explicit intent of not allowing governments to establish an official state religion (although several states did have official state charter denominations, because they could), and to insure against ANY government interference with the free practice of all religions. If you read about that time in history, you will understand the hows and whys this came about. The FEDERAL govt. could not interfer or endorse any religion. The states, however, could, and some did. The constitution was not written, nor ever intended, for the purpose of the fed.govt. interference or control of religion. Yet we have the Holy Justices constantly telling us where we can or cannot put a Menorah, or a manger scene, etc, often down to the micro detail. If what I’ve read about them is true, I think such meddling might have tempted them to another revolution (not to mention all the other areas of life the govt. seeks to control). To finalize, the constituion is not the enemy of religion, but the protector of it. But once the govt. got states to accept federal funds, the religion or God haters saw a wonderful loophole that allowed them(not really) to get around such interference.

You know, my tax dollars go towards education. I don’t have any objections to alternate views about any area of science being offered in schools, or religion, for that matter. And I don’t need arrogant, closed-minded, angry people to protect me or my children from such exposure.

God is imperfect? On what basis do you make a claim (assuming you believe in him, which if you don’t, well…..hhhmmmmmm you know)? How could you possibly know such a thing. And with what criteria do you reach such a conclusion? Your own? Well then, if you’re capable and qualified to judge God, then that must make you(drum roll) an even GREATER god!!!! Good luck with that one.

Do you believe the universe is eternal? Then you will be right at home in many religious systems. If not, I assume you believe it had a beginning. It seems that most scientists do. If it did, then the question “how did it begin” is quite logical and reasonable. Most religious systems, not all, but most, believe that God is eternal. He has no beginning. To try and figure out how something eternal began is, well, non-sensical.It amazes me(no, not really) how you can call hundreds of scientists a “bunch of liars” just because they see something in science that you don’t, or won’t. Trying to make a profit? I think that would refer more accurately to scientists who echo or toe the party line in order to obtain government grants to continue their research. If these id scientists were instead evolutionary ones, would you automatically assume they were more intelligent or correct? Merely because of a classification. There are 100′s of them, most if not all with phd’s in their respective fields, who went to respected and renown universities to obtain them. Why are they suddenly stupid because they don’t agree with your beliefs? Evolutionary scientists don’t agree with mine, but that doesn’t cause me to call them stupid, or idiots. I respect their right to differ, acknowledge their intelligence, and continue to read materials from evol. scientists. I just don’t think that they see the whole picture. They confer on evolution powers that it cannot and does not have. But they must believe it, for the alternative is not acceptable, at least to some. Again, if id theory is that void of evidence, what better way to abolish it’s challenge once and for all by exposing those weaknesses in the court of learning. If it really is void. No, with hysteria and abject fear, those who oppose it do not even want it mentioned in school. How childish and lame. Under the banner of “keep religion out of the schools” you oppose even the very presentation of an alternative proposal. If you have really read id literature, then you know that most of them(not all, but most) do not have to posit the christian God into the theory. Just a designer. And that’s the rub. It isn’t really about the evidence, it’s where the evidence might lead. God. Designer. That is the rub. What difference does it make what,if anything,you call Him. The evidence for design can be presented without calling on students to accept anyone’s God. Just substitue Designer. Heck, just leave that out. Just use design, and let students ask their own questions. Is that what you’re afraid of? That they will ask the “wrong” questions. Ones that don’t cater to the religion of evolution? I mean, you do have to have faith to believe in evol. To accept something impossible as true, without indisputable facts to substantiate it, is indeed an act of faith. The bible defines faith as “the substance of things hoped(by belief) for, things unseen.” Evolution was not seen in the beginning, does not present evidence from the past (fossils, and if true, we should have thousands if not millions of transitional ones), and is not being observed today (I mean it’s so gradual. Or is it too fast?). Yet you believe in it. Why am I an idiot or fool for believing in something unseen, yet you are enlightened for doing the same? See the inconsistency?

Again, you miss the point on eternal. If something is eternal, it has no spontaneous existence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think evol. believers consider it an eternal process. It had a beginning. Therefore, calculating odds on its possibility is quite reasonable. Calculating the odds of the eternal having a beginning is, again, non-sensical.
Appreciate the exchange.

If you would only bother to observe the other threads on this website, you would then see that it is not just Christians in general, but anyone — creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology proponents, anti-vaxxers, homeopathy proponents, UFO/government conspiracy nutters, Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy nutters, Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy nutters, ad infinitum — who comes here without a shred of evidence to back up their assertions, then they will definitely have their argument torn to shreds. As Dr. Phil Plait has often said, it is nothing personal against Christians or any other religious group for that matter — as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.

You still do not appear to understand the concept of evolution. You do not appear to understand that events progress serially.

You also seem to assume that because some mathematician claims that the odds of something are impossible, that they favor the even longer odds of Creationism.

You keep claiming to understand evolution, although you constantly make statements that contradict any understanding of evolution.

If the odds of evolution are as long as you claim, what are the odds of the spontaneous existence of even an imperfect being?

The God you believe in is not anywhere near perfect, since your God has to check with the modern Bible interpreters to see what is permitted.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you do believe in a perfect God, what are the odds that that God always existed? Certainly much larger than the odds that your imperfect God always existed. These odds are much larger than the odds of evolution occurring.

If you claim that the existence of God means that you do not have to calculate those odds, then the same applies to evolution.

Why should schools pay attention to the religious teaching of your particular sect, in violation of the Constitution, rather than recognize that there is no teaching here that is not religious.

You know I do not have any problem with an intelligent design, but the introduction of the intelligent design was billions of years ago in the form of the precursors of life – as all of the evidence demonstrates.

Intelligent Design as is introduced into schools is nothing but an attempt to get around the law. It is a fraud. The Discovery Institute is nothing but a bunch of liars pushing their politics in order to make a profit.

Quotes do not stand on their own. Quotes have a context, otherwise they would not be so often taken out of books, books that elucidate the meaning of the quotes. Throwing out a quote without context is misrepresenting it.

Again, mathematical quotes are offered not to identify or label the individual, but are exactly what they appear to be. Statements of believe, or in the case of odds, mathematical possibilities (or impossibilities). Nothing more. Nothing less. They stand and state clearly on their own.