the think..then move's..score keeping/..gets so stale
seems/he/she...has started from scratch....again...lol.....OUG,

lol and like your bullsh@t's any better(smile), and on the matter of belief, it makes more sence that god is a higher form of living matter ( hence, God is not what you think it is ) and its funny that all religions point to the sky, isn't it. All the great civilizations of the past had technological advancements man still cant get their heads around ( Plus the wheel had not been invented in the case of the Egyptians line ups of the stars, and I have no doubt that your nativity is similar to theirs. ) and considering other life had billions of years to evolve before us, its not hard to imagine that our galaxy may of had beings that has seeded planets like this, and knowing the mathematical odds that's against putting all the eggs in one basket.

This theory can not be simply dismissed just cause you say its so. You don't have anymore idea than I do about what and how that human life is different to all other. ( other than thanks to the apes )

If mankind doesn't cause his own extinction in the next 1000 years, we just might be gods ourselves one day, and this could be not so far away for the same reasons the gods have already done here.

and how did Noah and his ark drop off all the kangeroos and etc?

Not more magical stuff. SMILE.

TTM>

Oh Dan, I don't think ID is dead 'as a movement'. I never thought it was dead in popular culture, especially Christian culture.

But I do certainly do think ID is dead as 'science' and within the scientific community. The citation search is not the reasoan it is dead, it was just to show you the point: scientists are not using ID as a basis for research.

Why? Several likely reasons:

It lacks explantory power.
It has major problems which makes it weak as a 'scientific theory'.
It is useless.

If you don't believe me, then please direct me to a researcher who is using ID as the basis of a research program, in say medicine, biology or population genetics, anything like that.
Don't give me the BS that it's because of some vast evolutionist conspiracy that they don't get published or get grants etc., scientists use what works. Evolutionary theory works.
I can show you plenty of research that uses evolutionary theory as its basis.

ID as a 'scientific theory' is defunct. ID as a 'movement' is still kicking and selling plenty of books to suckers like you. But don't expect it to change science, that just ain't gonna happen.

the name/calling is comforting...it confirms no validation egsists

the best they can come up with...being kangeroo's/noah...which if relitive..to evolution's claims..is only by virtue of missing links/..yet again more gaps..in their theory

noting the platypuss/..nearest relitive the echidna..[oner on land/the other in the water...and no joinder betwixt the two...lol...yet more gaps..in ya theory

but lets go back to ya..paddymelon..noting..it is unchanged for 10 million years...and also dont got no link past that...

yet...huh?-mans....theoreticly...devolved from an ape..less that 100.000 years ago..and even the oldest bones of hummanus..[not the fake lucy..]...are yet human...

even the spurilous claims of missing links...now diverge..pre ape...its sad you lot cant see the strawman grasp/gasp

the theory..of seeding/by man-kind like faulse gods...is an out=there concept../wild speculation...grasping at strawmen...

this is the level of your evi-dense?

saying religions point at the sky/when clearly im pointing within..is yet more abstraction..in lue of fact..

bugs/bunny's excuses for id being dead...a further joke

<<..It lacks ex-plan-tory power.>>.lol...evolution dont explain nothing....ALL its egsamples..are at the species level

WHEN EVOLUTION..POSTULATE"S..species evolving out of genus...into neo/new genus...yet not one certain evolution...exta genus...ever!

<<It has major problems/which makes it weak as a 'scientific theory'.>>.better that a theory...CLAIMING A SCIENCE...yet not being able to replicate...their theory...via science method

HOW MUCH A JOKE IS THAT
science/theory..unable to supply science method...lol

id mearly asks science to explain..ITS/sciences..OWN CONTRADICTIONS...explain the gaps..replicate/or perish

<<It is useless.>>>i note you put your best foot forward first
then resort tio mere opinion...lol

HOW USEFULL..is a theo-ry of genus evolving..when it has never done/nor observed such an event...lol

you guys are so de-spiritly funny...lol

straw grasping at strawmen...using a micro theory of species
to generate a grand deception..of evolving genus

lest you be yet more confused...
id is a conclusion..not a process...lol

EVIL_LUTION<<as a 'THEORY'..is still kicking and selling plenty of books to suckers like you lot.

But/don't expect it to change that only god created
,..that just ain't gonna happen...lol

.

THE WONDER OF EVE

.

It was long before Jesus appeared on the scene that the world gave birth to its first authentic scapegoat.

Eve was her name.

Frail and fragile, she was no prophet nor child of god, no more than a spare rib extracted from the side of her earthly companion.

Faithful in love and mother of three children, she accepted to bear full responsibilty for the sins of mankind.

It was she who went before and Adam who followed after. She who took the risk to see what it was the serpent had to say.

And bravely, dear Eve, plucking up all her courage, confronted the wrath of the almighty creator so that her husband and children could walk free.

Free to choose from right and from wrong, in complete independence, and give true meaning to a love that is strong.

Without Eve we would still be in that garden of Eden, like so many marionettes, incapable of living the life of relative freedom and autonomy we enjoy today.

No man has ever been prepared to accept that responsibility, to claim the right to choose to disobey the almighty creator - not even Jesus.

Her courage and sacrifice are incommensurable.

Like the authors of the bible, we are in the comfortable position of being able to point the finger at Eve and say it is all her fault, not our's, not man's. She alone must bear full responsibilty for original sin.

She is the stupid bitch who brought us all down.

And that is the true story of the wonder of Eve.

.

Grim,

When you have the time would please responde to my reply. Thanks.

Dear Dan and David f,

Please refer to my above posts which are heavily leveraged on Michael Polanyi. Herein, by extension, perhaps, abstact mamthematics (and art) bulids domains/realms in which the scientist (or artist) can "indwell". What can happen is in-house, these "indwellers" like religionist indwellers distort the association between "confident utterances" about "accredited facts" and "declaratory sentences" about alleged facts (see earlier posts). Herein, it would seem that a mathematician (Paul Davies) could build an other world (new malliable physics) as does a theist create gods (supernatural).

Yet, I would add as previously mentioned:

"... Davies confuses faith with faithful (allegiance) in the case of the mathematician. Stephen Hawking did indwell in the Maths that nothing escapes a Black Hole, "only until" a bright grad-student pointed-out matter popping out the universe defies the second law of thermodynamics. Contrarily, Chistians "as a matter faith" believe more in the face contradictory evidence."

So, I would put scientits did indwell in the belief of the Solid State Theory of the Universe and even taught it. However, with more advanced physics and modern instrumentation almost all cosmologists will now recognise the BB explanation in the face of evidence. This religious belief is tentative.

Christians are also religious but they "rewrite" and "reinterpret" rather than change houses. As said above, citing Tillich and Augustine, believing in the face of contrary facts is a "test of faith" to be overcome.

So, both physcist and the priest/minister can be "religious". However, in the face of overwhelming argument, the former will usually move house; whereas, the latter usually will brick-up the door way, and like Winston Smith in 1984 rearrange past histories (e.g., the Shroud of Turin or the Literal vs. the allegorical bible)to support the core resilient core belief.

Banjo,

Paradise Lost was also a new begining, as Milton alludes.

Your points are clearly germaine, oops, germane :).


All,

Was the creation of Satan intelligent design? God in so doing ultimately brought about Jesus' crucifixion.

Can God create a better designer, more capable than himself? Or is god constrained by laws of entrophy