Of course one does.

He lives in Parris, & designs awful dresses, that he sells for ridicules prices, to women who have too much money.

OUG,

Hold the phone OUG! Who's selling the deception? Do you want people
to believe man was made from clay, woman was made from a rib and
that every error in the Bible should be ignored?

You manage to ignore the Biblical errors in your replies so is this
hypocrisy?

As for you quoting of Dr Charles Oxnard see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/compose-message-general.asp?discussion=2966

I would think a believer jumping to present an untruth is a problem
especially for that believer.

Try this more detailed analysis http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Or this about the knee joint falsehoods
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

OUG you have disappointed me. When you argue biblical matters you generally back up your arguments with chapter and verse.

BUT on this topic have you gone down the track of misleading the reader? What would your GOD think of someone who makes this fundamental error?

Your Zeal in defending all things Godly is impressive but continually in error.

Is your unsubstantiated belief in a GOD getting in the way of your ability to analyse critically? Afterall, the story of Noah is so obviously flawed! Do you believe it? BUT which bit do you believe the 7 pairs of ritually clean animals or what follows?

That is why belief means nothing! I believe I can run the 100 meters in 10 seconds...but it doesn't mean I can.

BUT it begs the question...Why do you continually try to prove the Bible (an obviously flawed document) right. Why doesn't GOD prove it right?

Why did GOD allow so many errors in his alleged book? AS he apparently knows all things, he must have realised that I using the brain he gave me, would easily pull it to pieces.

Does GOD really need believers who are so easily misled? Does GOD really need believers to defend him on indefensible issues?

Believers make GOD sound really unintelligent...I wonder what GOD thinks of that?

So if GOD is an intelligent designer he sure needs some work on his "selling of the concept" skills!

I think first of all we need to put intelligent design to bed. Intelligent design was a reactionary response to the ascendency of science as a more sensible and effective Earthly paradigm than religion. Religion wants to compete of course in the cosmological stakes. ID is a form of sophistry, a way of keeping God in the picture. But science is a quest beyond God; it has kicked off its training wheels and is looking to see what Man can achieve, withal his/her limitations. Science is an analytic method of computing data that knows not its wherewithal. Is the phenomena we perceive and extrapolate from how things are in themselves, or is our "reality" a construct of our peculiar sensibilities? Our senses and thought are actually filters via which "reality" is "constructed" as an end product. "Reality" is processed. What we perceive is very unlikely to be how things actually are--indeed science has shown us that perceived reality is mostly montage; the brain leaps ahead of the incoming data and says, "this is what you see", or feel or touch etc. And why should the Self (in fact the brain--though controversial) deny what it sees with its own eyes?
Intelligent design is laughable: the idea that "what's out there" is utterly anthropocentric, that it's all there for our benefit, we who live and die and defecate and copulate like all the other indigenous organisms on planet Earth--a ludicrously insignificant speck in the cosmos! Intelligent design is nothing more than public relations. It's just "snow".
But is this the end of ontology?

Two areas require our attention. One is time and the other is summation. We, in our universe, experience time, and, by extrapolation, we perceive causality and odds of things happening (chance). When we go back before* the first Plank Time interval, our common day expressions of change have no meaning:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm?CFID=19303560&CFTOKEN=a7dd8b6caaea6a03-D94D8117-15C5-EE01-B9B26588A6C3CB58

At the first 10-50 second**, there is no time, as a background, from which to compute chance. Yet, there may be probability arising from infinite indetermancy. Summation of across probabilities is sometimes used in quantum mechanics to realise answers from an infinite set. Some physicists have applied this “summing” principle to quantum cosmology, including the Creation of the universe:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html

If the universe and quantum phenomena do not have a privileged state and there are an infinite number of states, the question might not be what Created the universe, rather, what is the mechanism which allowed the universe to come into existence? I think there are two answers because there are an infinite numbers states, the subset of an infinite number states is an infinite number of realisable universes. The set of the former infinity is aninfinity larger than the set of the latter infinity. Here we don’t need pre-conceived or orchestrated knobs. All knobs and all settings, “are”. This solution is a “push” solution. The answer is exists because all answers exist. Alternatively, the solution is “called” – i.e., a “pull” solution. How? Observation, as in the Uncertainty Principle or, there two complementary arrows of time, wherein the universe calls itself into existence.

[* Before as we know it, isn’t. ** A nonsense interval.]

Wild speculation: Could it be the universe creates God? What if this universe created the biological process by which there are cells, mammals, great apes, humans, and, thousands of years from know homo sapien-sapien-sapien, with the ability to create a universe using a technology that would make the CERN accelerator seem like a stone axe: A distant ancestor capable of creating a universe? Said ancestor would be an (Godly) agent of reproduction – of children universes from this our universe. And our past parent?

Stevenlmeyers,

Thanks for the Birmingham link. I have read the Goldilocks Enigma, but have read, "Just Six Numbers". I will keep an eye out for it. Thanks.

Squeers,

"Our senses and thought are actually filters via which "reality" is "constructed" as an end product. "Reality" is processed. What we perceive is very unlikely to be how things actually are--indeed science has shown us that perceived reality is mostly montage; the brain leaps ahead of the incoming data and says, "this is what you see", or feel or touch etc. And why should the Self (in fact the brain--though controversial) deny what it sees with its own eyes?" - Squeers.

Once its was the brain telling we have "Phantom Limb Syndrome". Now, "Phantom God Syndrome"? :-)

Religionists,

Why do you see the gods of human cultures performing miracles, in contravention of the Laws it established in nature? Does it not make Jesus or Zeus et al seem like a magician or an illusionist?

opinionated..[science wants us to believe we..[life]..came from soup[lets face it..neither has the whole truth...some say clay..some say soup..[but only one..claims to be TRUE..via science method...

so no doudt you say soup...GIVE THE RECIPE...then replicate your...lol..SCIENCE...create your ambiogensis soup...if you true to science be...then evolve that first life..into some other life...

science fraud..is what it is...science claims science..via being able to replicate/its statements..via science method.....well replicate the validations of your...lol..science theory

note re your first link...its a blank reply..this is your proof of just what egsactly...i check links bro..your validation of an empty link..is no proof..[except to those decieved by links to nowhere]

as for not putting up links here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0
as you can see[should you read it

i rebutted EVERY so called proof put up by those claiming science method...it links to a few other debates..where people failed to validate their own science delusions

i agree with the expanding/contracting universe[calling them gods breath...bang...god bresathes out..then breaths in...then bang breathes out[as a metaphore like the use of clay...each breath repeating eternally the same stories/events...

thus needing..only a god trusting it to unfold perfectly..the same everytime...we are shown at death/..rebirth..the book of life...then told it is as old as god...and every detail the same..

[but the last is speculation on my part]..but then so too is the science claim of evolution...if science present your science...and i will rebut it..[yet again]...

its only proof..of what it can validate true...if science state the faulsifyables...see previous debates...none are/have been stated ever..[thus evolution isnt a science]...closed minds are afraid to search/accept...the truth of science needs scientificly valid proof]..