Icarus, it is apparent you have misjudged something here, because I have not once viewed you as anything other then what you are debating right now. You have stated numerous times that you are not a creationist, and I have no reason to not believe you.
Wrong, again I ask you to actually read the entire thread with respect to the items I have discussed, I also state how little evidence or any at all ID is based upon.

Just because I question evolution, which is as viable as questioning anything does not make me a creationist, I could believe in co existence or any other theories out there.

Why must I be categorized either a creationist or an evolutionist? Cant you understand that maybe just maybe the entire story of our existence is a mix of both theories?

This is all I am saying, im sorry to reveal to you that you have been looking for a fight, I said this earlier on.

Just the same as I think you misjudge my standpoint. I havent once argued that ID shouldnt be something taught to children in schools as a possibility, I just dont see how its viable to do so in any meaningful manner
I never said, once that ID should be literally "taught" to children.

ID and Evolution do not remove the ability for the other to exist
I have covered this point in my previous point about stereotypes and educational systems of science, please read it.

The problem is, in my mind, that there isnt a viable way to teach creationism in the public school system without involving religion.
I did not say we must teach creationism, I never said this, the missunderstanding has been on your part im afraid to say, but this is also covered in my previous post.

Please read it.

Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature
Im not trying to literally "prove" intelligent design with these sources, I am no believer of ID, im just saying... oh forget it, I give up trying to get through to you delta.

Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles
I only presume you are being offensive to me lol.

the question being how is it possible to teach this to children without involving any specific religion?
Incase you did not understand my previous post I was talking mostly about the points you are making here based upon stereotype view of creationism being always a theory which incorporates religion..

thats the important part, thats the part that we should be focusing on, because if we can figure that out, we have figured out a way to do the very thing we are saying should be done.
Im not saying we should "teach" ID lol.

Think about that - I said it was an error that a creationist might make - YOU made the error - let that one sink in. I didn't say you were a creationist - I just said you are making the same mistakes.

Think More - Post less.
My understanding was correct, the reason I said "I am not a creationist" (pardon for being so blunt) was because a CREATIONIST MADE THEM STATEMENTS.

Just because I posted them does not mean that I agree with them 100% or even the slightest bit, this is the core of the "debate" - that there is no debate, I do not agree with creationism, I neither agree with evolution I simply say we should rule NEITHER OUT.

I'm not arguing with you as a creationist - I'm arguing with you as someone who doesn't understand science. This you have unfortunately made rather clear - hence the responses you get.

Seriously this is getting lame - I don't even think YOU know what you are arguing about anymore.

If you are going to ignore the VAST mountain of evidence then you are a completely impossible to debate with and rather boorish.
Okay, so you state that there is a vast degree of evidence for evolution, right, what are you trying to achieve by telling me this? That evolution is true?

When did I say evolution was not true?

And how on earth does this mean we should rule out intelligent design?

Think about that, and also think about, when you say I have no undertsanding of the subject of evolution (that is personal) when you yourself look at the evidence, when YOU look at the evidence you will be suprised to find that scientists EDUCATED scientists are starting to point to CO EXISTENCE as opposed to THE ORTHODOX THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

And yes, it is personal when you assume people have no understanding about subjects, next time you go to your bank and ask for financial advice, and they tell you - you are stupid and have no understanding of finance (which may be true) try telling yourself that they are not launching a personal attack.

You don't actually seem to want to argue the merits (or otherwise) of evolution because either
I said this from the beginning, that I did not want a debate, why would I when i neither agree with either theory?

Or do we HAVE to have a debate about the two theories?

Plus you need better sources than this :: Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature


Quoting from "creationost" literature hardly helps - *lol* added for shits and giggles
I actually did say in the previous post that the source I used had a substantial level of flaws to it.

But my reasons for putting it out was that, yes we should question theories such as evolution (like this one does).

I'm not attacking you Fallen_Icarus - understand though that I AM attacking your ideas,
Your not attacking "my ideas", your attacking other peoples ideas lol.

Your attacking creationists and the authors of such material such as "mathematical proof for intelligent design".

Which is clearly NOT TRUE because ID is still not an absolute.

So I think you've got it wrong there, your not attacking my ideas.

If you were to attack my ideas, you would attack the idea that we should be open minded and question every theory even the new co existence theory put forward from significant evidence of evolution, and evolution itself, and even.. GRAVITY!

I also think we should not rule anything out (Intelligent design) until we know for sure it is not true.

So what ideas of MINE are you attacking?



So what am I debating about you ask?

IM NOT, I did not come here for a debate, people suddenly jumped in with ignorant moronic presumptions that I want creationism literally TAUGHT in schools.

Im sorry if you've wasted your time, but I guess you'll learn not to prejudge and presume so much in the future.