Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

another easy strike by the ole bass itself. On this one I used a Penn reel with 8 lb test and a light bucktail front weighted so it got good "bottom action". A fish is a terrible thing to waste.

I was remarking on the fact that some of the scientific types here, as differentiated from scientists, have often confused theories with facts.

another easy strike by the ole bass itself. On this one I used a Penn reel with 8 lb test and a light bucktail front weighted so it got good "bottom action". A fish is a terrible thing to waste.

Perhaps you could provide examples of the theories and facts that you have found confused here on the thread, so we can help clear up the confusion.

I have no confusion. Wherever did you get that idea from?

It's another anti-ID projection. It is they who are confused. They live in a Christian society, root and branch, and live by its tenets and yet they reject it and don't respect it. They are Joycians really but without any capacity to articulate his demons. They haven't the stomach for it.

spendi, Yes we do! Just answer osbournes question about "your" confusion. We will wait with impatience.

akaMechsmith wrote:

I was remarking on the fact that some of the scientific types here, as differentiated from scientists, have often confused theories with facts.

While other of the scientific types here, as differentiated from scientists, demonstrate a functional understanding of both theory and fact, right?

Ros, Yes, most do.

Perhaps you could provide examples of the theories and facts that you have found confused here on the thread, so we can help clear up the confusion.

How on earth, or anywhere else, could the mother of God not be a virgin.

If She wasn't it would mean God had a Dad and He would be God surely?

Only when the concept of virginity was invented were virgins existent. So the First Mother must have been a virgin. (See Wittgenstein).

Words are not the same as the things they supposedly represent. They merely symbolise them in a crude way.

I suppose I would say that if I was you.

In fact I have said it myself a number of times when I was growing up. Not exactly in answer to those words I chose to use. They were merely a sort of distilled form of a longer challenge to my own rebellion. Mainly from writers and other artists but sometimes in a pub or across a dining table.

We are guided through life by various forces. Which, of course, places us in the role of little children being ushered across a road by a fussy schoolmarm. Which is a role we don't like. Our machismo demands we become independent and stand on our own feet. John Wayne.

But the independence starts the jitters if we take it too far. Most of us rush back to the safe arms of society when that happens and give up some of our independence.

Try living as an anti-IDer logically ought to. You'll soon see what I mean.

As it is it's nothing but a pose. Gets you attention.

I'm more like Charlie Drake or even Sgt Bilko. I'd kneel down and pray beside Col Hall's sickbed if Mrs Hall asked me too. I wouldn't be starting any arguments about superstitous nonsense at a time like that.

How on earth, or anywhere else, could the mother of God not be a virgin.

If She wasn't it would mean God had a Dad and He would be God surely?

Only when the concept of virginity was invented were virgins existent. So the First Mother must have been a virgin. (See Wittgenstein).

Words are not the same as the things they supposedly represent. They merely symbolise them in a crude way.

Spendi,

You need to study the "concept" of the "Trinity.

In Christian theology the filioque clause (filioque meaning "and [from] the son" in Latin) is a heavily disputed clause added to the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by Roman Catholic Christians but rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians. Many Eastern Catholic churches do not use the clause in their creed, but profess the doctrine it represents, as it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Insofar as Protestant churches take a position on the doctrine, acceptance of the filioque is normative. The clause is most often referred to as simply "filioque" or "the filioque."

My objection to accepting ID as science is two-fold. On the one hand, I don't believe that Science should accept untestable hypothesis,