It should have read 'some' schizophrenics. Most of course, don't like the revelation-like plots and endings, and would try anything to have a normal life.

Unlike, US religious masters who are indoctrinating their sheep into wanting 'the Rapture' to happen.

Bring on that gene therapy - there's not a moment to lose!

Well, "Alan Grey", welcome to the discussion. I assume you are taking up the cudgels where your alter ego "Grey" left off.

Incidentally, you have an identity problem - you obviously associate so closely with his ideas that you use "I" instead of "he", but I guess we can let this pass, given your obvious enthusiasm to protect him from charges of intellectual dishonesty at best, and devious, deliberate cheating at worst.

Let me say to you what I would say to Grey. I'm sure you'll pass it on to him.

In a Gallup poll, where there are a number of possible responses from which to select as answers to a question, you cannot unilaterally decide that the respondents who selected (a) also meant (b) or (c), simply to suit your case.

The difference here is crystal clear. Those who answered "God created man exactly how Bible describes it" are creationists. Note the word "exactly" in the sentence. This includes the six days of creation, Adam and Eve (and their incestuous relationship), Noah's ark and the whole shebang.

Those who responded "Evolved, God Guided" clearly had ID in mind, and had rejected the creationist story in its favour. It is dishonest of you to pretend that these people, responding to a Gallup question, thought to themselves "I am a creationist, who believes that the world was created ten thousand years or so ago, but I also believe the bits of ID theory that are consistent with creationism..."

I strongly suggest that you tell Grey that he should resign from the forum, as a final cleansing act of contrition for his dishonest behaviour. Or perhaps "behavior".

WOW Josie, your eloquence surpasses alchemists early postings...(cough)
I think the topic was ID and not 'bash the religous nutters'..but hey, I can go along with your ideas for a bit of a fanciful exercise....

Until you can raise the level of your posts above that of screaming obscenities at each other like some street fight I doubt people will take you very seriously.

Religous nutters = 4 yr olds ? Indeed ! (Mr Newton would love that little comment) I guess you want Stephen Hawking to ridicule his wife for attending an evangelical Church, (as he sometimes does).

But that aside, how about putting some effort into the actual topic and addressing it ?

Apart from many of the "I'm gonna WIN this argument no matter what the cost" of some, there has been some helpful constructive input by others, how about joining the constructive side ?

Oh, Just one point, where in the world did you get the idea that Religious people reject the social and material benefits of science ?
For goodness sake, many great discoveries were made BY Christians.
We do baulk at the idea of fiddling with Human Embryo's, especially when we are told that 'adult' stem cells are quite useful for the same research.

For your information, I deleted half of my initial response, as it became too 'dark' as I contemplated a world populated by 'your' ideas.

You need to get out more Josie, the refuge/shelter is turning you into a vengeful spiteful abusive .....(words fail me)

While talking to my friend a Professor in microbiology at Church this morning I mentioned to him if he might write an article on his perspectives on ID. He is up to date on the debate, and will prepare a paper for the young people in our church who are encountering opposition from atheists. He himself has 4 children 2 at university and all dedicated Christians. He admits evolution does not and is not able to give all the answers to life. It cannot get to first base in the design and nature of basic inorganic chemistry.

David I viewed the cloud formation, to an artist it has asthetic appeal, to a poet God run his fingers through the clouds forming the display, to a scientist the nature of wind on the chemistry of the cloud formed the structure. Both the wind and the chemistry have design features that form amazing images. Who gave the clouds their chemistry, and the wind its nature?

Philo
Your church must be the only place in Australia where almost the entire congregation are scientists or computer programmers. Could you possibly give me a list of the people in your church who aren't scientists? It shouldn't take long, there would only be 3 or 4 surely. :D
By the way. I noticed you never answered My question. Perhaps you could ask your friend the biologist.
Peace all.

"X-rays taken at Port Morseby Hospital, but sent back to Australia with me, lost in the 'RAAF' hospital system.... so, nothing to show you.
As for 'post' 'healing' Xrays.. don't have any, I was so overwhelmed with what had happened, the last thing I was contemplating was needing to 'prove' it to a bloke(?) named "Alchemist" 30 yrs later :)"

Boaz, mate... I'm sure it hurt and all, and that you were wonderfully uplifted... but I'm not at all surprised that the only evidence of this 'miracle' exists only in your memory, unavailable to any objective means of verification whatsoever.

Before you lecture others about their need to 'win' an argument, perhaps you should reflect upon your own debating tactics. You are often dogmatic and strident - not to mention outright incorrect on factual, historical and theoretical matters - and you SHOUT a helluva lot.

You may have a deep understanding of something or other that you haven't revealed here, but I suggest you steer clear of science. Put it this way: on the basis of your ramblings here, I know more about the Bible than you know about science - and that's sweet FA :)