While we're on the subject of mythical figures, one of my favourite's is Sherlock Holmes. Poor old Arthur Conan Doyle was unable to kill-off his obsessively rational creation as the public kept demanding more. Indeed, much like the IDists on this thread, many a Sherlock fetishist believed absolutely in the Baker street duo, sending them sacks of fan mail and requests to solve puzzling family imbroglios. Indeed I believe there is still a die-hard set of believers to this day, cleaving to Holmes's pseudo-rational "animistic reason", which served in its day as a way of reconciling fin-de-siecle angst with the "iron cage" of rational modernity. The Holmes fantasies offered a comforting reconciliation between rationalism and mysticism--just as ID does.
Ironically, poor Conan Doyle, the author of this supremely rational being, took cold comfort in his exploits, declaring instead his own emphatic belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden--rigorously supported by photographic evidence!
I heard some actual audio once of discussions between Doyle and Harry Houdini about their mutual belief in spiritualism. Curiously too, I have in my possession an obscure pictorial notebook compiled by Conan Doyle's father (I often wonder if it's rare), filled with weird aphorisms and illustrated throughout with lavish drawings of fairies and other supernatural beings. Sadly, Doyle senior created this colourful text while in an insane asylum.
Unless the credulous folk on this thread can produce some photographs, audio recordings of conversations with God, or any other evidence that she is more than a fantasy figure, I suggest you salvage some dignity and say no more about it. There's no shame in being deluded, only in obstinately propagating it when you've been thoroughly outed.

Since some here are having difficulty distinguishing between creationism and ID, I thought I’d provide a good link that explains the differences (or lack thereof) between the two... http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent-des-11.html

ID is nothing more than creationism’s Trojan horse - that’s it - and that is why I refuse to give it credence.

Runner,

<<First he claims they have no evidence and now he says that he knocks down what they have not got.>>

Notice I put the word “evidence” in quotation marks? You’re a classic example of what I had said in another thread about some theists being only too willing to misinterpret others (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10321#169670).

Interesting too that you have never once been able to provide evidence for creationism.

But I’m glad I make you laugh. Laughter can only be a good thing for someone who is clearly addicted to hate.

Severin, I'm not too sure about this.

>>maybe if I'm a very good girl all year, I'll get that 1969 Mustang with the Boss engine.<<

I don't think the good girl schtick is going to get you that far. Heck, they made fewer than 1,500.

Perhaps you should lower your sights a bit - go for the '66 Convertible with the Code K plant. White. Or at a pinch, red.

Or alternatively, think in terms of being a very bad girl indeed...

Hi Dan,

I am a little busy now. Please excuse brevity. Citations can be provided later.

- There are several examples of the flat earth in the Bible, generally related to height and seeing all the corners/lands/kingdoms.

- I mentioned point 4 because of the OLO claim that "no" Christian takes the bible literally. Runner does. It was a poll to make sure I wasn't putting my perceptions into other people's mouths and to test the aformentioned claim. Finding some Christians do believe in a literal Bible.

- Scholars have given their special names/letters to the various OT writers from studying their styles.

- The NT is a fourth century collected works only in part reflecting what was written about Jesus. And what was written seems to have a commencement date generations after Jesus' death. There were many gospels, not all supporting a divine Jesus.

- Genesis was harmonised (rewritten) circa the first century to explain contradictions (Dead Sea Scrolls).

In ancient times, we had re-writings, to harmonise interpretations. In 18th-20th centuries, there was a shift from the literal Bible to the allegorical Bible. In 20th-21st century the God of the Gaps sheltered/shelters ID. In the 22nd century, perhaps, when scientists explained a closed universe, Christian theists will be saying, "who closed it?" ... God, of course.

Could be offline for a few days.

Cheers.

Oliver,
You say you’ll be offline for a while. I’m wondering how ‘on’ you are when you’re here.

You address me, but I wonder whether you read what I say.

No one, Runner included, takes all of the Bible literally. Some bits are not meant to be taken literally. Jesus said, “If your hand sins, cut it off, and if your eye sins, pluck it out.” The Western world would be quite a different place if we took that literally.

And yes, some of the poetic parts of the Bible refer to the ‘far corners’ of the earth. But if we head down that path, then we would accuse modern meteorologists of believing the earth is flat when they print the times of the ‘sun rise’ and ‘sun set’ in the daily newspaper. The sun doesn’t rise or set; the world turns. But that is the language of appearance, which is common and acceptable.

Oliver or others,

An important issue regards life would be "Why is life formed in the first place, or why does life want to live".

This issue becomes important when deciding what lifeforms can be synthesised.

When the synthethic bacterium was produced, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18942-immaculate-creation-birth-of-the-first-synthetic-cell.html

the scientist involved said "synthetic cells could be used to create drugs, biofuels and other useful products."

So a bacteria can be synthesised and used for the purposes of man.

Another person seems to believe that this is acceptable because "The bacteria didn't have a soul, and there wasn't some animistic property of the bacteria that changed,"

However, I am wondering if a lifeform could be developed and released somewhere, because it is a living thing and can survive in a certain environment, and not necessarily because it serves a purpose for man

Such questions will need to be answered shortly.