Ah, you uesed this '?'. Yes, that is what scientist do! Slowly but surely I'm buying into the fact that you "might" be a scientist! Lot's of good questions too!

So may be you could answer some of the questions or provide some commentary on them? Thats how a scientific dialog would proceed. For example, why were males designed with nipples?

Why do you also expect perfection? You are not, the universe is not, nature is not. And Dull pointed out why there is no such thing as perfection in this verse.

I would still be interested in engaging you about some of the questions I posed. Could you give us some of your thoughts on these?

---

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

Thing is, what makes you think I don't have an open mind towards evolution theory? I have said many times on this board that I accept evolution. There is just one part I don't believe and have stated what part that is. Please don't mislabel me. You should ask me my opinion, not give it to me. Thank you...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Yes. I will...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

Thing is, what makes you think I don't have an open mind towards evolution theory? I have said many times on this board that I accept evolution. There is just one part I don't believe and have stated what part that is. Please don't mislabel me. You should ask me my opinion, not give it to me. Thank you...

That's it ID! You should open yourself to my opinion, think it over, and then give a response. I don't mislabel you at all, although you ARE a Setizen:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

Thing is, what makes you think I don't have an open mind towards evolution theory? I have said many times on this board that I accept evolution. There is just one part I don't believe and have stated what part that is. Please don't mislabel me. You should ask me my opinion, not give it to me. Thank you...

So...

We are not disputing Evolutionary Theory, but Original Creation?

I thought I had been clear on this. I will try again.

I do not believe in chance happening of the universe or life. I believe the odds are longer then the life of the universe, many times over.

Just like the thing we use here made of wires and tubes called the internet created by Al Gore, it was designed.

The pattern, of design is clear to me.

Design, not chance. Causal Agent, not nothingness.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

Thing is, what makes you think I don't have an open mind towards evolution theory? I have said many times on this board that I accept evolution. There is just one part I don't believe and have stated what part that is. Please don't mislabel me. You should ask me my opinion, not give it to me. Thank you...

That's it ID! You should open yourself to my opinion, think it over, and then give a response. I don't mislabel you at all, although you ARE a Setizen:)

Please give me more of your opinion. I can't give my opinion on your opinion without more of your opinion. I'm not going to make the same mistake as you have, Setizen.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

Thing is, what makes you think I don't have an open mind towards evolution theory? I have said many times on this board that I accept evolution. There is just one part I don't believe and have stated what part that is. Please don't mislabel me. You should ask me my opinion, not give it to me. Thank you...

That's it ID! You should open yourself to my opinion, think it over, and then give a response. I don't mislabel you at all, although you ARE a Setizen:)

Please give me more of your opinion. I can't give my opinion on your opinion without more of your opinion. I'm not going to make the same mistake as you have, Setizen.

No I won't, I will read further down this thread (and other threads). Opinion, opinion, blah blah! I gave my opinion a few posts ago.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Of course there's no such thing in evolution as perfection, look at the human kind:)

What is awesome is that evolution explains the human need to see patterns and intelligence in nature when there is none. So evolution can explain IDs need to see god, but IDs god cannot explain evolution.

The thing is, if he really wants the answers (Robert), he should have an open mind towards the evolution theory and not pursuing his point all the time.

Thing is, what makes you think I don't have an open mind towards evolution theory? I have said many times on this board that I accept evolution. There is just one part I don't believe and have stated what part that is. Please don't mislabel me. You should ask me my opinion, not give it to me. Thank you...

So if you accept evolution, then I find your support of ID very confusing. Perhaps you could clarify what the "one part" of evolution that you disagree with is, since I must have missed that in reading your posts.

---

My God.....

You and I have gone round and round about it for at least a year now.

It's the point you have no proof of.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The Unmoved Mover.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The Unmoved Mover.

You and Brendan have totally different opinions but that's ok:) You are more of a philosopher imo ID whereas Brendan thinks in a more empirical way. Carry on though.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

My God.....

You and I have gone round and round about it for at least a year now.

It's the point you have no proof of.

Ah yes! I remember how this will go. You're going to say "There is no proof that one species changes into another".
I will then point out that evolution does not suggest or imply that one species changes into another. You will then ignore this point and repeat your original statement.
I will then give you specific examples of how species are formed through evolutionary forces and you will deny them all. You know, fossil record, DNA sequences mapping changes in species (human vs neanderthal vs denisovian ?sp), dogs, those annoying finches beaks, bacterial evolution, viral evolution (think HIV/Flu) etc etc. And at the end, you will still not have supplied any "proof that species were formed through ID". Just for once, can you answer some of the questions which the ID hypothesis raises?

---

Please give me more of your opinion. I can't give my opinion on your opinion without more of your opinion. I'm not going to make the same mistake as you have, Setizen.

Now that's just another evasive cop out as usual.

Cheers.

My God.....

You and I have gone round and round about it for at least a year now.

It's the point you have no proof of.

ID falls into the same class as other hypotheses/proposal which were counter to established scientific fact and which are foisted on us by various groups:
1. That smoking does not cause cancer. Took 40 years for tobacco companies to be convinced, despite consensus in the medical field.
2. That AIDS is not caused by HIV. Look at the havoc wreaked in S. Africa by the deniers.
3. That vaccination causes autism. Despite clinical trials disproving this, people refused to vaccinate and now we have an increase in long vanquished viral diseases, leading to ilnnes and some deaths.
4. That global warming is a hoax (but lets not go there right now!).
I could add more.

---

The Unmoved Mover.

You and Brendan have totally different opinions but that's ok:) You are more of a philosopher imo ID whereas Brendan thinks in a more empirical way. Carry on though.

Not fully true Julie. You are correct to a point. Allow me to explain... ...the below is from the site, what I believe.

Aquinas' Argument from Motion begins with the empirical observation of motion in the world. If Aquinas' argument is correct, the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.

Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe in chance. The laws that govern our universe appear to be finely tuned. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

We have a position in the universe and indeed our galaxy, also on this rock we stand that offers up the best view of universe. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

This rock we all stand on gives us just the right type of atmosphere to see through to look at the stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

All the right things happened at all the right times for us to appear for all of the above. I have no doubt we are meant to reach them stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

We have been placed in our timeline at just the right time and with just the right tools to reach them stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

I believe because of the preponderance of the evidence.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools

...because its not science.

---

Reality Internet Personality

the preponderance of the evidence

You have it correct there.

If Thomas Aquinas was alive today and looked at the preponderance of the evidence, what conclusions would he make?

The Unmoved Mover.

You and Brendan have totally different opinions but that's ok:) You are more of a philosopher imo ID whereas Brendan thinks in a more empirical way. Carry on though.

Not fully true Julie. You are correct to a point. Allow me to explain... ...the below is from the site, what I believe.

Aquinas' Argument from Motion begins with the empirical observation of motion in the world. If Aquinas' argument is correct, the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.

Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe in chance. The laws that govern our universe appear to be finely tuned. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

Appearances can be deceiving and are not evidence, thus you believe in ?

We have a position in the universe and indeed our galaxy, also on this rock we stand that offers up the best view of universe. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

What is you evidence that we have the "best view of the universe"? What other views have you compared ours with?

This rock we all stand on gives us just the right type of atmosphere to see through to look at the stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

Our atmosphere distorts our view of the stars, do you believe the moon is larger when it is close to the horizon than when it is directly overhead? No atmosphere provides a better view, which is why we have sent telescopes into space.

All the right things happened at all the right times for us to appear for all of the above. I have no doubt we are meant to reach them stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

The right time compared with?

We have been placed in our timeline at just the right time and with just the right tools to reach them stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

I believe because of the preponderance of the evidence.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

the preponderance of the evidence

You have it correct there.

If Thomas Aquinas was alive today and looked at the preponderance of the evidence, what conclusions would he make?

Well... he DID live nearly 800 years ago, when the sun revolved around the earth and scientists were regularly persecuted and burned at the stake for heresy... could take awhile for him to adjust. :/ Would suggest he was given no real power or influence until he had :)

[quote]The Unmoved Mover.

You and Brendan have totally different opinions but that's ok:) You are more of a philosopher imo ID whereas Brendan thinks in a more empirical way. Carry on though.

Not fully true Julie. You are correct to a point. Allow me to explain... ...the below is from the site, what I believe.

Aquinas' Argument from Motion begins with the empirical observation of motion in the world. If Aquinas' argument is correct, the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.

Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. (Again, note that the argument proceeds from empirical evidence; hence it is an à posteriori or an inductive argument.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe in chance. The laws that govern our universe appear to be finely tuned. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

Appearances can be deceiving and are not evidence, thus you believe in ?

A finely tuned universe. What I see and know.

We have a position in the universe and indeed our galaxy, also on this rock we stand that offers up the best view of universe. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

What is you evidence that we have the "best view of the universe"? What other views have you compared ours with?

All the other planets in our system.

This rock we all stand on gives us just the right type of atmosphere to see through to look at the stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

Our atmosphere distorts our view of the stars, do you believe the moon is larger when it is close to the horizon than when it is directly overhead? No atmosphere provides a better view, which is why we have sent telescopes into space.

Didn't stop Galileo and the others after him. Didn't stop Mr. Red shift blue shift either... ...there are programs that take out that distortion.

All the right things happened at all the right times for us to appear for all of the above. I have no doubt we are meant to reach them stars. This I believe by the preponderance of the evidence.

The right time compared with?

The wrong time. 65 million years ago. Ya, 65 million years ago was a bad time, real bad day. Oh well, made room for us. ;-)

All of what I have said is true.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...