Intelligent Design Theory Solution

cicerone imposter wrote:

Now, if can only destroy that mystical god once-and-for-all for all mankind.

That is impossible, because of the way that god has been defined.

How can you prove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being that is everywhere at once and is not made of anything known to man?

You cannot prove someone is omniscient, because we cannot know everything. We might be able to prove someone is omnipotent, but that's going to be difficult. You can't prove that someone is everywhere at once, because we haven't been to every place in existance.

Yes, as people pushed the frontiers of knowledge, the definitions of a god became wilder and more imaginative. The definitions became harder to define, harder to prove. Science cannot touch god or any god, because of the way they have been defined.

How does one have complete trust and confidence in something they cannot observe, feel, hear, touch, trust or understand?

cicerone imposter wrote:

How does one have complete trust and confidence in something they cannot observe, feel, hear, touch, trust or understand?

guess ya gotta have faith, faith, faith - I gotta have faith, faith, hey yeah -
BABY!

Any observable proof of evolution would be carefully considered. Know anyone who has observed it? Or do you just have faith that it MUST have happened?

Quote:

Any observable proof of evolution would be carefully considered. Know anyone who has observed it? Or do you just have faith that it MUST have happened?

Djever see an atom? how bout an electron?


how about a part per billion



Proof consists of evidence from multiple sources. Or predictions made in its name -WORK.

You still havent come up with any scientific achievements that were based upon Creationist principles. Youve continually ducked and shuffled.
Ill give you some
Polonium halos
polystrate fossils
Cretaceous man fossils
flood geology
DNA is static
sea salt levels indicate a young earth
thermocline of the earth
glaciers are post flood
abiogenic oil
dinosaurs were vegetarians (all of em)
There was a worldwide flood

As you can see there is nothing in the above list that any serious worker in science would even attempt to follow to develop some predictive theories that would even make sense.Yet, alas, these are some areas of crap that the ICR still sells to the gullible.

Further, theres no research going on in ID or Creationism anymore.Why is that?

You still havent come up with any scientific achievements that were based upon Creationist principles. Youve continually ducked and shuffled.

Actually, I'd be very interested to hear your take on these, one at a time.

Not so fast, real. First answer farmerman's question; "Further, theres no research going on in ID or Creationism anymore. Why is that?"

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not so fast, real. First answer farmerman's question; "Further, theres no research going on in ID or Creationism anymore. Why is that?"

Great example of a circular argument.

'Creationists aren't TRUE scientists, therefore they should not be hired for or participate in research or receive funding grants for research.

If creationists aren't being hired for research or participating in it or receiving funding grants for research, then they must not be TRUE scientists.'

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not so fast, real. First answer farmerman's question; "Further, theres no research going on in ID or Creationism anymore. Why is that?"

Great example of a circular argument.

'Creationists aren't TRUE scientists, therefore they should not be hired for or participate in research or receive funding grants for research.

If creationists aren't being hired for research or participating in it or receiving funding grants for research, then they must not be TRUE scientists.'

Why can't creationists fund their own research?

real, Im sure Duane Gish would disagree with you.

Why can't evolutionists fund their research?

Or do you believe that evolutionists are the owners of the public universities, etc where research takes place, so they ARE funding their own research?