Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I ignore questions that do not allow me to peach my brand of religion? Where have I ignored your questions? Sorry if I don't have all the time in the world to immediately address your demand for an answer.

Peace.

Good evening,The discussions of the "Living pre-Adamite" humans was long and draw out and was undertaken by several Biblical scholars herein. Noone has, as of yet, attempted to break up the camps of the various Creation "SCiences " beside a Young Earth and an Old Earth. You seem to want to add a separate bifurcation to Creationists who have "Not" translated the ASCripture properly. You , of course know that, that's what CAtholics were always aboput.


As far as a geographic and temporal roadmap based upon the "flood", there is ON evidence of a world wide flood that occured at a single time. In all stratigraphic sequences of the earth, from Columbian Time to the Holocene, no place on earth was inindated without there being other parts of the planet that were dry land. We have erosional surfaces all over the map and stratigraphy.


ALL major religious scriptures of the "big 3 derivative beliefs" are at major odds with scientific evidence and to say that its merely an interpretive preference is incorrect.

PS, Ill try to keep civil , as you can see, this discussion is older than the Appalachians

Our Biblical truth seaker speaker has spent most of his life studying a book that on it's own isn't a "book" as per say. Alice in wonderland was written in English and has only one author and is easily translated and read. He, however. manages to translate a bunch of story's written by many different authors, that have been translated and written mostly by people that weren't even there.... This conglomeration that has been translated from many different language's over vastly different times is now called a "Book of knowledge ". I think if he had spent the same amount of time studying evolution or any of the basic scientific work of the thousands of knowledgeable un brain washed people of the past and of the future instead of the piss farting little unknowable story book from the past called a bible .... I wouldn't be writing this.

perhaps but arent you curious as to how we see things at polar opposites from Truth seeker?

Yep... But have been reading these ding bats for the last 13 odd years from Abuzz to Able 2know the only time I think I know, is when they have cured themselves of their hair brained ideas, is when they stop writing and and perhaps have retreated back into the home of all the mentally frozen religiousness.

It's funny how you mock the scriptures with your holier than thou so called scientific enlightenment yet in the same breath attempt to enlighten me on biblical history.
Do you not realize that most of the majority of scientific minds from the past, of which all of our science has its foundations, were believers in the scriptures? Do you not find it a bit absurd that the theory of evolution has not come that far since then yet it was fair enough for them to hold true to science and still hold true to their faith, and yet you seem to boast a more modern enlightenment that merely appears to be for the soul purpose of erecting yourself onto a pedestal to have the luxury of looking down on everyone else?

Its a mentality that was not present through any of Darwin's work or any others in the scientific community. Pride is an ugly thing, especially when it is misplaced.

Peace.

That's quite amusing ed. Talking about ignoring questions in a post that does nothing except ignore the question your post is responding to. And admitting to breaking a resolution which is a very easy one to keep.

This statement ios irrelevant and only partially correct (Re: the scientsist of the past}.
Newton was a "believer" and he was a;lso an alchemist. SHould you cherry pick his beliefs that assisted in the developmet of his various laws?

Newton was also a vegetarian, was this important to calculus?

Try this from directly above.



Have you a problem with that question? It's obvious the anti-IDers do.

Darwins first edition of "The Origin of Species..." was an argument about the mechanism of natural sel;ection. It was full of experimental results and observations from which conclusions were derived. "Scripture" is none of that. Its a series of supposed inerrant techings and observations that can neiother be observed nor repeated.

Its really not worth any time to incorporate into valid research. (ALthough many of the SCientific Creationists have tried and failed)

NOTHING that science has found has yet been refuted bt Creationists. Mostof the portions of the Bible that are used as contextual "proofs" of Creation are based upon minimalist presentation and requiring much transliteration as well as traslation.
Using a Greek text will no more bolster a Creationist argument than will a KJV Bible. Thats a dodge that Creationists use to try to command some degree of exceptionalism and obscure "revelations". To me, i find that kind of thinking as failed attempts at evading facts.

"There were giants on the earth in thise times" was as minimalist a statement from which a canon in "Christian SCience" could be exerpted. Its just a bunch of irrelevant obviousness with no mechanism to command any consoideration fo such a thing as Creationist history (or paleontology).

Muslims are great at this also. They will make much more cohesive arguments for their beliefs but, as usual, its all just subjective post facto junk. (I could probably make an argument for quantum chemistry just from analyzing the arrangement of names in the Newark New Jersey phone directory)

If by "herein" you mean on this thread, or the other one, I think you will be in some difficulty supplying evidence to back up that view.

The world before the Bible in more or less incomprehsible to people who live in our technological, globalised system. The industrial revolution, in conjunction with a communications revolution which is an offshoot of it, has changed the way in which we organise our political affairs. Radically.

The range of operations of prophets and preachers of Biblical times was quite restricted. Even Paul's communications with what were distant parts in his day, were only known to a few.

There is great literary interest today in the Bible and some of the generalities expressed in it but outside of that it is a record of quite localised affairs made by what I assume were considered, at the time, to be eccentrics of one sort or another. There is no sense that I have seen in it of any consideration of an intelligent designer.

You simply do not understand the significance of the directional activity of the Faustian project being a fundamental cultural shift. Mutation, if you prefer. The cathedral spire and the perspective in the interiors are metaphors in stone of that active directionalism. Unknown styles previously. You might look at the art of all the main cultures before about 1000AD and it is almost as if directionalism was eschewed. There certainly isn't any in what I have looked at. Compare any icon with a Rembrandt.

Until you admit that you are seeking to bring to fruition a world without God, or ideas of a similar nature, and those stemming from it, and a world where the government regulates the relations between the sexes, to which we all owe our existence and, according to polls, we spend the bulk of our waking life thinking about and being contrained by, or there being no regulation at all, you simply cannot be taken seriously. Your own views are neither here nor there in a science discussion. It is what society needs we are concerned with.

So you should admit you are promoting full-blown atheism, as Aldous Huxley described it, or some other scenario, and make the case for it rather than spending your time pointing out what you perceive as weaknesses in the position of your opponents. Your opponents being a far larger number than your supporters.

I think you know that any attempt by you to deliniate the main features of a full-blown atheist society, such as N.Korea is said to be, will either be ludicrous or cause your supporters to dwindle when it is explained to them.

Which is why you never see fit to inform us of what you are asking us to buy. As snake-oil salespersons are wont to do. The Naked Lunch so to speak.

No, it's not logic, it's called Tautology.

And even though I'm sure you believe this, it's absolutely clear from what you've said that exactly the opposite is true.

Personally, i try to be religiously scientific . . . so to speak . . .

Im not asking you tu "Buy" anything. Im not the one who publiahed the views on Pre Adamite man. It was a topic of discussion that was introduced into one of these threads by folks who employ your tyl of reasoning (which depends on dodge and parry rather than discussions of evidence and facts).

The individual named "Real Life" would engage us in this as an occasional topic so that he could dodge around the scriptural writings that there were only 2 people and then 4 people at the post creation time. Only a very few extreme Fundamental Christian and Muslim sects even accept this myth.

Im not the one who demanded literalism from scriptures (were I a fan of scripture). Most religions today accept the use of these tales in their metaphorical sense , most of us understand that and find these tales charming though naive. Dont you?

Thats why a word like "Scientific Creationism" isnt laughed at by the Fundamentalists.

But that takes the view that the translation is understood as the author intended which is rarely the case with even English readers reading the first edition.

But, following Derrida and other deconstructionists, post-structuralists and postmodern philosophers, a text means whatever the reader of it chooses it to mean. And Scripture is no exception as is easily seen on this thread and others in the same field.

The "Rabbit hole", for example, was the name given to the back stairs entrance of the hall of the Oxford college Mr Dodgson was a member of and up which many a young woman had "fallen" and become large or small depending on the circumstances she was being considered in.

Numerous mathematical concepts are played with in the author's game.

The articles wande brings to our attention from time to time were written by numerous authors. Often unwittingly.

As you know fm the how of the matter is an important consideration of mine. The distinction between the what, the where and the when and the how and the why. Evolution theory is at a complete loss to account for the how and the why. Determining the what the where and the when is fairly simple. Not so the how and the why.

It is a fundamental flaw in your logic that you translate knowledge of the what, the where and the when, such as it is, into conclusions relating to the how and the why. Doing so does rather limit curiosity to the range of knowledge read off instruments and produces a situation in which dimwitted bigots are entirely selected in for because it involves no risks.

Your only safe procedure is to persuade people to repress thoughts of the how and the why.

Good luck with that.

Once again fm you simply attack the position of the other side whilst studiously avoiding your own solutions as if undermining your opponents is the end of the matter.

I certainly do find a lot of the tales in the Bible charming. But never naive. I think the idea that they are naive is naive.

I think that promoting atheism is asking us to buy into it. And you have dodged and not very well parried the question you were asked.