Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
So true.. Its not a bad thing to NOT understand prophesy or the parables either..
Thats as it SHOULD BE..
The sheep MUST BE separated from the goats.. the tares from the wheat, the virgins from the whores.. You are what you are.. its not a matter of what you act like.. You just are what and whom you are.. Everything is perfect.. Just the way its supposed to be.. going as to schedule, on time..
Is GOD cool or WHAT?...
If someone wishes to make up a fictitious name such as the above it will have no effect on the theory. It will neither qualify or disqualify it. It will, however, tend to lower the level of discussion. A flying spaghetti monster has no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Understand the difference?
No, I'm simply telling you the facts about the ID movement as they have stated them.
One can easily infer the presence of intelligent desingn and use it to support a theory without positing every detail as to the manner and degree of the designer's involvement.
You can most definitely infer that. The personal judgement that everything appears designed is not illogical. However, it isn't science. Science requires that you describe the mechanisms by which your theory produces its results and support that with very specific evidence. I cannot think of one widely accepted scientific theory that does not do that.
A picture of Clara Bow in a pizza?
"If someone wishes to make up a fictitious name such as the above it will have no effect on the theory. It will neither qualify or disqualify it."
How do you know it's fictitious?
"A flying spaghetti monster has no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Understand the difference?"
What about an intelligently designing Flying Spaghetti Monster (which is what I said)? How can you be sure that that's not the actual designer if, as you admit, you can't know anything about the characteristics of the designer without divine revelation?
Fulfilled predictions of the paranormal are generally as accurate as the average mundane guess. The fact that the guess was made under the guise of the paranormal makes suckers pay attention. Next, you'll be saying that dowsing works.
Remember that an infinite number of rednecks shooting at an infinite number of road signs will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare in braille.
Indeed. Tout est bien, tout va bien, tout va le mieux qu'il soit possible
You're wierd.
I don't speak Moonbat - MoonEagle..
That's what good science has been doing all along. All good science takes place within the parameters of intelligent design as it explores and expounds upon orgaized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. All good science fits within the theory of intelligent design. Now, if it should produce an example of disorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws, then it may be on the way to disrupting, or weakening, the theory of intelligent design. That evidence has not been forthcoming to date.
Meanwhile, I have yet to see evos put forth any individual who seriously adheres to a flying spaghetti monster as responsible for the organization of matter and the ongoing funcion of the so-called laws of nature. I also note with interest, that not one single example has been given to show science taking place without either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two.
How is that? If intelligent design is so absent and beyond the purview of science, then why can't science provide a single example of the absence of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two?
It wasn't an obscure quote, but it's usually translated as "Everything is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds."
But if all you've read is the Bible, well, you won't be familiar with it.
I thought the 'Pigs' reference was far more obscure!
Ah, you miss the point. The person adhering "to a flying spaghetti monster" belief would be an IDer, not an "evo."
The ability to intelligently design something has, to my knowledge, never been ascribed to airborne pasta. The name and specific features of an intelligent designer are not necessary to infer the presence of intelligent design. Again, flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Apparently you have difficulty acknowledging or understanding the difference.
Whichever. Where's the pasta?
"The name and specific features of an intelligent designer are not necessary to infer the presence of intelligent design. Again, flying spaghetti monsters have no basis in reality. Intelligent designers do. Apparently you have difficulty acknowledging or understanding the difference."
But the FSM IS an intelligent designer. By definition. If, as you admit, we don't know from the physical evidence what attributes the designer has, how can you categorically say that it isn't a FSM.? Gut feeling?
All the commonality of the ERV virus DNA sequences in humans, apes, and some monkeys 'prove' is that they all are susceptible to that particular virus. A 'time scale since the last common ancestor' based on gene sequencing is purely a hypothetical construct of evolutionary thought and belief. See the link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1012wash_post.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.