 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
I don't know...this actually kinna makes sense to my brain, and here's why:
* A bedrock, scientific fact isn't a fact unless it's true all the time.
* Natural Selection CANNOT be scientific fact, because Bush is ALIVE. That he exists at all, flies in the face of natural selection.
* Since Bush's existence cannot be explained by natural selection, we must look elsewhere.
Thus, perhaps Intelligent Design isn't the BEST place to look, it is a start (tho as has been pointed out, if it explains Shrub's existence, then it very definitely needs a new name!)
Nonetheless, our sitting President is a MOST excellent poster child for their cause.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't know...this actually kinna makes sense to my brain, and here's why:
* A bedrock, scientific fact isn't a fact unless it's true all the time.
* Natural Selection CANNOT be scientific fact, because Bush is ALIVE. That he exists at all, flies in the face of natural selection.
* Since Bush's existence cannot be explained by natural selection, we must look elsewhere.
Thus, perhaps Intelligent Design isn't the BEST place to look, it is a start (tho as has been pointed out, if it explains Shrub's existence, then it very definitely needs a new name!)
Nonetheless, our sitting President is a MOST excellent poster child for their cause.
-=Vel=-
|
I don't think that you have followed this line of thought to the end. Bush Jr. may be a proof of ID, but that only explains his existence - you totally have forgotten that he twice has been elected as president. That to happen should be considered as a proof against Intelligent "design" because then he shouldn't have had a chance of getting elected - on the other side, it could be taken as a proof that more than half of US citizens are possible winners of a darwin award.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't know...this actually kinna makes sense to my brain, and here's why:
* A bedrock, scientific fact isn't a fact unless it's true all the time.
* Natural Selection CANNOT be scientific fact, because Bush is ALIVE. That he exists at all, flies in the face of natural selection.
* Since Bush's existence cannot be explained by natural selection, we must look elsewhere.
Thus, perhaps Intelligent Design isn't the BEST place to look, it is a start (tho as has been pointed out, if it explains Shrub's existence, then it very definitely needs a new name!)
Nonetheless, our sitting President is a MOST excellent poster child for their cause.
-=Vel=-
|
But wouldn´t the Theory then have to be altered into
NSID (not so intelligent design) or even SD (stupid design) to fit the facts?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
I find it humourous that people call supporters of ID "creationist freaks". I suppose that is how Galileio felt when persecuted for his beliefs. 
One of the oldest historical documents we have (the Bible) supports ID. Just because science is unsophisticated enough to explain it doesn't disprove it...hehe |
Galileo Galiliei, unlike his persecutors, was a scientist who based his ideas and theories on experiments and observations, not wish fulfilment, religious dogma and superstition and ignorance- the foundations of creationism and (un)intelligent design.
The Bible is not one document, but a collection of texts, by many authors, from different periods, none of whom appear to have been interested in experimental science of any kind.
It has been extensively revised over the centuries, with 'dissident' texts rejected and is internally inconsistent, as well as out of joint with what is known of the history of the Middle and Near East from other states' documentation and inscriptions.
I suggest you do a course in the history of Bible translation into English- and then perhaps start on the tricky subject of biblical attribution.
Be prepared for some unpleasant surprises.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
once more, you don't know what you are talking about...
you can follow the translation processes... and you can study the books that got rejected... (which happened in the 4th century AD, not in the last 1600 years)
and I actually recommend that, I have spent many a day reading up on it, it is fascinating stuff
yes, in the first few hundred years there were many people who beleived quite different things then what the majority of Christiandom believes today, but the arguments one way or another are known
like one group that believed different, had beliefs that were very close to a greek mysticism cult, so (just based upon that, not on the beliefs in question) it would be easy to disregard them as being corrupted by that cult
study it, be prepared for some surprises.. but then see that the Bible is still good
Jon Miller
(wtf do you get the extensively revised over the centuries.. you can see the current translations, and the older ones, and I think, if you read latin, that you can even read one of main three that is currently used by most bible version writers)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2005 02:15
I am speechless at your complete and utter ignorance of science. 
|