Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

I really think that you reading comprehension and writing skills are not what they could be. Either that, or you seem to believe that you have the right to tell someone they may not believe in Creationism. How are you to enforce that? Fines, public flogging, imprisonment or death?

They crazies are the ones who believe that expressions of bigotry is somehow a public service.

 

Speaking of that reading comprehension problem!
I already very directly stated they have NO right to enforce it.
They have EVERY right to say it.
You aren't addressing my arguments. You are simply creating a strawman to fight.
Do you see this?
How can I make it more clear for you?

 

Here's where I posted that, in case your computer won't let you go all the way back to the previous page.

 

It was the first source for the idea of genes and traits which became the foundation of the present medical work in Genetic Science:

Genesis 30:32
I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire.

 

How does this have anything to do with genetics?

 

What's funny about the verse you quoted is that chapter read in its entirety shows a complete misrepresentation of how things really work.
Read 30:37-40.
It's hilarious.

 

Right,,,

I have brought his Reading Comprehension to his attention many times.

He also "reads into" the scriptures his own ideas of what he says they say, which doesn't make ny scientific or academic sense when understood as he explains the Bible.
Then, he turns around and blames the bible writers for what he has decided they said, in face of the clearly different literal meaning.

He condemns the Westboro Church acting like the prophets of earlier days, who turned over the tables in the temples or lay out naked in public like Ezekiel so as to comnd the media attention that could get no other way.
Meanwhile, he proclaims the out and wide open Homosexuality and teenage pre-marital sex that takes place for 14 years before marriage while abortions and Welfare become the responsiblity of tax paying sexually prudent citizens.

 

Not really.
If one knows anything about the science of genetics they understand exactly what Jacob was doing.
Like the Rev. Mendel, who also separated the pink flowers from the white, Israel collected the speckled sheep to one side and the spotted to the other.

 

Please cite a post of mine to support your accusations.
Should be easy, right?
Or apologize.

- - - Updated - - -

You are avoiding the verses I cited.
Why is that?
Is your idea of genetics that if you eat near stripes, you become striped?
Tell us more!

 

A simple apology will suffice.

 

The history of intelligent design is enlightening. It was thought up by lawyer Phillip Johnson, after the SCOTUS decided in Edwards v. Aguillard that "scientific creationism" is religion and not science. So Johnson and his Discovery Institute took a standard creationist text and did a global search and replace of "creation" with "design" and "creationist" with "design proponent." The definition of creationism was left word for word identical, only the name changed. So intelligent design became "creationism lite", where due to court decisions they had to relabel "god" as "the designer", and omit any mention of the bible.

What became clear soon enough was that this version of ID was to be used in courts and political campaigns. The original Praise Jesus version of creationism was (and is) still used in raising funds, which is done in churches. But of course, ID is just science!

And in due course, ID was challenged in court, and the court found that it was pure religion. ID holds that somehow, sometime in the past, some indetectible agency did something undefined, or is still doing it for some reason. Not one testable hypothesis can be derived from this description, but that doesn't matter because ID is not a scientific idea, it is a political and social program.

 

No it is not out of order.

The Earth was a formless void. It did not exist except as a formless void, then God said, "Let there be light". Same as big bang theory. There was nothing and then from nothing - BANG!

I'd be willing to bet that flying insects probably were around before many land animals and birds being the descended from the dinosaurs were around before many mammalian creatures of today so the bible has that right actually.

Water meaning the sea of "space" - after the light, he created a dome (the atmosphere - or Great Oxygenation Event) to separate the waters from the waters, (the skies from the seas).

Mountains did not appear on the Earth until they were formed by plate tectonics.

But water did cover the entire Earth at one point. It is called the "Snowball Earth" theory before many of the creatures of the Earth appeared.

Firmament is a reference to the skies, not Terra Firma.

Where is the contradiction?

 

I see no difference between what you have sighted above, with what scientists believe today.

 

What the heck is a formless void anyways?

I don't believe Genesis says anything about insects, so I am not sure how that is relevant. And no, mammals came first, so that isnt right.

You seem to be suggesting that at one point the plates weren't moving.

That is a hypothesis and one that is jot widely accept. And even if it was, so what? It bears no relation to The Flood narrative.

[auote]Firmament is a reference to the skies, not Terra Firma.[/quote]

That isn't what it originally meant, no.

Read Genesis 1 and 2 right after another.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you aren't familiar with what scientists believe today.

 

I need not apologize for you poor reading and writing comprehension nor for your bigoted remarks.

You have a right to free speech. You may tell someone that you don't like what they believe, but you don't have the right to tell them what they may believe. See the difference? I doubt you do because your reading comprehension level is very poor.

 

Read it perfectly.
I have every right to say it.
I agree it's foolish and unenforceable, but I have every right to SAY it.
If I don't, what would be the civil or criminal penalty for doing so?
Do you see the in accuracy of your argument?
Surely you can understand this.

 

A court makes a narrow ruling on atheism having equal status to a religion, and that settles it, for the goddies: ATHEISM is RELIGION!!!

Court finds that ID is science. Goddies: ID is SCIENCE!!!

 

Meh. Twist is all you wish, it does not lend to your critical thinking abilities.

The earth was not a formless void before the universe. Photons did not exist in the earliest moment of the universe. Flying insects are not birds. The firmament does not exist. Dry land existed before water.

I suggest reading a science text book for once in your life. And perhaps reading Genesis 1:1 and 2:24 and look for the blatant contradictions (a different order of events).

It is not that hard to figure out.

Next.

 

Court finds women have a right to abortion, Goddies: MURDERERS!!!1111!!111

 

Hey Patriot.
You can't believe in creationism. You are forbidden.
I will now await the arrival of Homeland Security to take me away.
Do you see how silly your argument is?

 

Therefore the Supremes ruled that murder is legal..

I personally think abortion is a terrible thing, and I wish it never happened.
When we get to an ideal world, it wont happen and there will be no occasion for laws about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me a fundy who knows how silly their arguments are, and i will show you an ex fundy.

 

Third world court, fundy on trial, would they still like the same kind of logic they like now?

 

Use a dictionary.

"...everything that creeps upon the ground".

What I said was birds were around long before most mammals of today. Wrong? Also:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
Earliest bird 150 million years ago.
Earliest mammals 66 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenozoic

At one point the earth was molten lava and the plates had yet to form.

Yes it is a theory. I have no idea how popular the idea is. I didn't say it bears any relation to the flood narrative. This is long before the flood narrative in fact.

Sure it is.

Done. And what part conflicts again?

Sure I am. Scientists believe that sometime in the past, some indetectible catalyst did something undefined or is still doing it for some reason (time, space, dark matter, dark energy, gravity ect).

 

Perhaps you need to read more of the thread so that you will understand the context of the conversation. According to scientist before the big bang, there was nothing. A void if you will. " In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [1:2] the earth was a formless void".

I never said flying insects are birds.

Firmament: "The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky." You don't think the sky exists?

Dry land existed before water, and the bible does not say that it didn't.

I suggest you not be so smug and condescending because you are not as smart as you think you are.

I have read Genesis. What blatant contradictions are you referring to? No one seems to be able to point them out in this thread.

If it is not that hard to figure out, why is it so hard for you to post it?

- - - Updated - - -

I do see how silly your argument is.

 

I see others have commented on this suggesting that others read the rest of the passage. Since they didn't post it and some may not have checked it out I will post it here.

So cupid dave is telling us that the greatest accomplishment that ID has to offer is the idea that if animals breed in front of striped and speckled tree branches they will have stripped and speckled offspring. THIS is what they want to teach our children in science class. And they just can't understand why we won't let them!

Religious conservatives have already succeeded in dragging our economy back to the days of the Great Depression. Apparently they won't be satisfied until they drag our technology back to the iron age.