@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
this was a pretty good thread with lots of good stuff. It was followed by another of wandells threads on educational challenges IF id were "upheld" as science in District III.
Im resigning from this thread cause theres no longer a point. Its just one poster who is insisting that hes making a point that's valid to this thread and hes missed the point entirely. However, Does that even give him pause to reconsider his point?
Not a bit!.
I don't think hes stupid, he's just unable and unwilling to analyze what hes saying objectively. Hes got too much macho involved to say anything differently.
Then, of course theres our little yap dog spendi.
If my point is unimportant and invalid...why have so many people spent so much time on it.
It is valid...and it does have bearing on the issue.
Some of you people are suggesting (some rather subtly)…that intelligent design is not possible…that it is impossible.
It is not.
IF there is the possibility of a GOD…there is the possibility of intelligent design.
That is a given.
Why are you people claiming I should not be using “if”; that my argument is illogical; that I should not be making it because “god” is not testable; that I am making a fool of myself…and all that nonsense?
Why, by this time, have you all not simply conceded that IF there is the possibility of a GOD…there is the possibility of intelligent design?