The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Hardcore Newbie]

"an evolutionist doesn't need address a creationists arguments directly, they need only point out that they consider these arguments to be illogical..." you instantly lose much credibility, and just come off as being obstinate.

How so? If all someone is going is bringing illogical arguments in a specific way, then you point out the kind of faulty logic they're using to present their case, saving you time of disproving each case on it's own, to showing what type of argument they're using and why it can be disregarded.

Think about it...I could practically re-make this entire video, replace "creationist" with "evolutionist", and get the same response from creationists that this video is getting from evolutionists. That doesn't make it any more "logically infallible", quite the opposite actually, it makes it equally as unfeasible for all the same reasons.

Evolution doesn't get it's proof by disproving ID or creationism. Evolution's strength doesn't come from ID or creation's weakness, evolution's strength comes from it's own observations tests and conclusions.

What test can one possibly conduct to prove the existence of an intelligent designer?

Hardcore Newbie Reviewed by Hardcore Newbie on 11-09-2007. The primary flaw in intelligent design This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer". I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the Rating: 5

[Mr. Clandestine]

No, the video would not work if you switched the two arguments.

Yes, the video would. I said that this principle would apply directly to those who view themselves as creationists, and in return, it would produce a similar outcome/response. Just because you refuse to believe in it doesn't equate to it being an illogical fallacy, you see?

Evolution is a theory built on observation of the natural world and a logical explanation for what is observed. Creationism/ID is not.

A logical explanation, affirmed by a group of people who think along the same lines. There is no observation that the big bang theory happened...there are only concepts of what it could have looked like, should it have ever actually happened. The same rule applies to creationists. We can't prove to non-believers that our theory is infallible, so we merely project how we think it happened. No different from most of the theories presented in evolutionist propaganda, you understand? It's a nice theory in most respects, but it's largely undocumented because there is very little to document. It was all a generalization to begin with and people ran with it.

Creationism/ID arguments work by poking holes in evolutionary theory and then filling those holes with God or an "intelligent designer."

Okay, let's run with this. Evolutionists/big bang theorists/pragmatists merely survive, yet rarely flourish, in these arguments based on their own secular reasoning. Many point out links that they deem the most coherent to them and stick by their convictions, just like many creationists are prone to do, regardless of whether or not they are factually relevant. The point is, this is a matter of personal opinion...and many, but not all evolutionists understand that their premise behind all this incessant bickering revolves around unattainable truths. Or myths. There are, of course, some facts strewn about, on both sides mind you, but both sides seem reluctant to want to believe one another and are quick to simply point out the others biased sources. I'm not offended by this, though I prefer not to force my beliefs on another person. So why then does it offend so many people when I tell them that I believe God created this universe...as opposed to a big explosion that came from nowhere in particular? I am, after all, just expressing my own personal opinion. It offends them because it's contrary to their personal beliefs. Some people simply don't take that as well as others.

As the video points out, that line of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

That all depends on a persons definition of "logic". Which, in my opinion, can mean a system of applicable reasoning used to further one's sense of knowledge on a particular subject. You consider it a fallacy, I do not. What makes me incorrect? Your opinion on the matter? I don't think so...

It does not in any way rely on holes in the creationism/ID arguments.

Correct, it relies on debasing one theory for another. I won't bother pointing out the holes commonly found by creationists, because I'm sure you don't want to hear it for the umpteen billionth time. You should respect that creationist don't want to hear that "you're right, and we're wrong" because so-called scientists have gathered all sorts of hypothetical scenarios and bundled them all together into a unified (but largely unjustified) theoretical concept. There may be a few bits and pieces of evidence, but it's nothing conclusive...otherwise it wouldn't still be a theory, it would be an irrefutable fact. I can go on to say that numerous historical documents have been recovered in the past that prove that the authors of many biblical documents were true to their word. But does this make my faith in ID an irrefutable fact? No. It makes it a scenario that's plausible to me, and therefore, I'll stand by it.

In order for creationism/ID to be interchangeable with evolution in the video, creationism/ID would have to also have logical arguments based on empirical evidence FOR its conclusions and not rely on holes in evolutionary theory.

As I just said, we have plenty of logical arguments based on empirical evidence recovered from tombs, historical archaeological sites, and the like. I don't rely on holes in evolutionary theory, I merely point them out when an evolutionist has the lack of courtesy to do the same for me. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy to simply disagree with that person and move on.

I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.

Please, don't insult my intelligence by making irrational assumptions like this. Assumptions that my only logical arguments are derived from arguments found in the Spirituality section of Cannabis.com! But, based on this little quip, I'll just assume that this is the only place where you are able to make solid conclusions of your own arguments, and that you should also reach out to threads/websites/documents other than those presented here. There's a whole wealth of knowledge outside of Cannabis.com, you know...:wtf:

And I will also assert that if you search those same threads or search outside this forum, you will not find empirical evidence FOR an intelligent designer. The most you will find are examples of phenomena that supporters of creationism/ID claim are not explained by evolutionary theory, and the claim that those holes in evolutionary theory are evidence in favor of creationism/ID.

Make assertations all you want, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I've found plenty of empirical evidence pointing to an intelligent designer, but would I expect you to believe it? Definitely not. You're dead-set in your own beliefs, just as I am...and it would be inconsiderate of me to try and take that from you. Your assertation is pretty funny, though...because all you're able to present is identical phenomena that correlates indirectly to the theories you're trying to pass off as infallible! So-what if a scientist stumbled upon a fossil of a species that appears to have possibly evolved? For all they know, they may have uncovered an entirely different animal altogether. After all, it's just bones and partially definable characteristics that they assume are from the same class of animals. Forget that they've been dead for thousands of years (or according to some scientists, billions of years), and that their arguments are rendered baseless by the fact that few scientists were actually studying/documenting these animals during the time they were alive...it all happened after the fact. Nevermind that, though...it's merely conjecture, and can still be passed off as plausible.

Scientists are discovering new species all the time, will continue to do so, and will probably continue to claim that it all somehow correlates to the initial origin of species in some obscure manner. They'll be right as long as there are people out there willing to believe it. Because it's just not possible for me to prove them wrong.

...just like it's not possible for you to prove me wrong. Get over it, there's no need to become offended because someone on par with your critical reasoning skills can actually believe in this 'nonsensical fallacy' and get away with it. I must just be an idiot who's got a way with words. No other way to explain it...right?

[Mr. Clandestine]

How so? If all someone is going is bringing illogical arguments in a specific way, then you point out the kind of faulty logic they're using to present their case, saving you time of disproving each case on it's own, to showing what type of argument they're using and why it can be disregarded.

Ah-ha! That's exactly what I'm trying to prove...that I consider many of these arguments to be illogical, lending me viable reasons why I think they can be disregarded. Not all of them, keep in mind...I actually agree with a good bit of evolutionist theories, even some that directly contradict my own theories of creation. But rarely are there any that actually disprove my theories...they merely disagree with them. I'm very open to differences in opinions, because it better helps me to understand how I can reach a common-ground with those that vehemently disagree with me. I don't like arguing, because it's not a constructive use of my time. And while I know that mutual understanding just isn't always possible, I still enjoy being able to "agree to disagree", then walking away (or further discussing) the topic with some degree of humility and some sense of understanding.

Evolution doesn't get it's proof by disproving ID or creationism. Evolution's strength doesn't come from ID or creation's weakness, evolution's strength comes from it's own observations tests and conclusions.

You're right that all scientists don't have to rely on poking holes in creationists theories to prove their case, but neither do all creationists. We've pointed out several matters that we deem factually relevant to us, such as historical documents pointing to the authenticity of our religious scripture. How is that any less tangible than a pile of bones that's estimated to be between a few thousand and billions of years old? It's only faulty logic when you consider the source of the objection. It makes perfect sense to the originating party.

What test can one possibly conduct to prove the existence of an intelligent designer?

I could go so far as to base my conclusion on the various degrees of the Anthropic Principle, but that would be too subjective. There are plenty of theorems, but what's to say that they'd mean anything to you...even if they mean something to me? Take for instance:

"God does exist".

Basis propositions:

(1) Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent beings.

Is that proof? No, but it's not an illogical theory.

As I was saying to Dragonrider, it's simply not possible for me to prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an intelligent designer (God) created this world and everything in it. I can point out reasons why I believe He does exist, but I'm sure much of it would fall on deaf ears. And that's okay, I have no problem with letting you believe whatever you so desire. My only problem is, and always has been, when I am the target of unscrupulous people who become angry at me for making the same choice that they made at some point in the past. The only difference being that I chose a different set of standards. It's easy to disagree with someone, and I think that's why I am attacked for my religious beliefs so frequently. But it's also easy to disagree with someone, while at the same time listening to their reasoning behind the decision they made, and having constructive conversations that provide insight to each party. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not out to try and disprove every bit of evolutionist theory that I come across...so I appreciate when the favor is returned by not telling me that I'm wrong simply because I have no tangible proof.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Ah-ha! That's exactly what I'm trying to prove...that I consider many of these arguments to be illogical, lending me viable reasons why I think they can be disregarded.

You have to show how it is illogical.

You're right that all scientists don't have to rely on poking holes in creationists theories to prove their case, but neither do all creationists. We've pointed out several matters that we deem factually relevant to us, such as historical documents pointing to the authenticity of our religious scripture.

Care to show a sceptic your historical documents?

How is that any less tangible than a pile of bones that's estimated to be between a few thousand and billions of years old?

Which pile of bones is estimated to be either thousands or millions of years old?

It's only faulty logic when you consider the source of the objection. It makes perfect sense to the originating party.

There aren't two versions of logic.

"God does exist".

Basis propositions:

(1) Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent beings.

You state that this is not proof, this is a supposition. You are supposing that anything that resembles a language is made by intelligent beings. But the language of math disproves that. Yes, we may have come up with the symbols so we can interpret the language (numbers and operations) but math occurs in nature. Otherwise, different regions could use different math formulae and still be "right".

Now "could" math be created with some form of ID? of course, but it doesn't make that supposition because it hasn't been observed. Math is something we discovered, we don't suppose beyond that discovery.

Is that proof? No, but it's not an illogical theory.

Actually it does defy logic, for one could suppose anything, and have it be on equal ground with another supposed belief. Why is this supposition exempt from that?

I can point out reasons why I believe He does exist, but I'm sure much of it would fall on deaf ears.

If these theories are logical or have proof, spit 'em out

My only problem is, and always has been, when I am the target of unscrupulous people who become angry at me for making the same choice that they made at some point in the past. The only difference being that I chose a different set of standards. It's easy to disagree with someone, and I think that's why I am attacked for my religious beliefs so frequently.

I don't believe in attacking people, I do believe in attacking beliefs. If people aren't basing their life around logic, then what standard are they basing it on... superstition? randomness? mood? suppositions?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not out to try and disprove every bit of evolutionist theory that I come across...so I appreciate when the favor is returned by not telling me that I'm wrong simply because I have no tangible proof.

That's good to hear, as disregarding information on evolution does nothing to help anyone else's viewpoint anyways.

But people will not believe you if you have claims without backing proof, it's that simple. Otherwise, I could tell you that I flew yesterday by flapping my arms really fast, and cry foul when someone calls me a liar.

[Mr. Clandestine]

You have to show how it is illogical.

I can point to arguments made before me, hardly any of which are original, but I figured you were probably tired of hearing them...and it's not my intention to turn this into the same drab argument that's already been reproduced countless times. It's also only going to point out why I think it's illogical, but most likely wouldn't hold the same meaning for you. Again, I'm not fond of pushing my beliefs on others because it tends to just start arguments, but if I had to point out one illogical evolutionist flaw, it would have to be that this beautiful world was generated randomly, and by sheer chance. I understand where you attempt to find logic in this scenario, and even try to apply scientific studies & conclusions to back up your hypothesis, but I stand firm that only an intelligent creator would be capable of creating so much beauty...and that this never could have happened by blind chance. And conversely, I attribute all the ugliness in this world to the actions and deeds of humans.

Care to show a skeptic your historical documents?

Not sure what you're asking here. I could show plenty of skeptics of these historical documents, hell...the Catholic Church is sometimes one of the biggest critics. Ever heard of the Gospel According to Saint Thomas? It was a set of scrolls said to have been written by one of Jesus' closest disciples, unearthed in Egypt in 1945, and claims to actually be the words and instructions of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church considers these documents to be the work of a heretical author (even though they recognize Didymus Judas Thomas as one of the most respected apostles), but of course, would never revise their canonical texts to allow this scripture into the Holy Bible. But I've read this gospel, several times, and find much meaning behind the words, analogies, and parables that Jesus used...so I'm blatantly refusing to listen to the Catholic Church, and taking my own stance on this subject. Not that I'm a Catholic anyway, but you get my point. Most Christians aren't fond of having any disputes with the Catholic Church, especially ones that the Church considers to be heresy.

Which pile of bones is estimated to be either thousands or millions of years old?

I wasn't pointing to any pile of bones in particular, but to all of them in general. Scientists claim that many dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and many came to this conclusion based on the findings of carbon dating methods. But, as I'm sure you've heard plenty of times before, Carbon-14 degrades over time, and probably wouldn't sustain these amounts of carbon isotopes over millions of years. Thousands maybe, but not millions/billions.

There aren't two versions of logic.

But there can exist two people who, due to several varying factors, find different meaning in the "sound logic" seen by the other. You could, for all intensive purposes, contend that aliens don't exist because of the sheer improbability of there being another planet capable of sustaining carbon-based lifeforms...while I could point out that for all we know, life can exist in different plains of existence, or based on other undocumented circumstances. I.e. - electro-magnetic energy derived lifeforms, hydrogen based lifeforms, spaghetti based lifeforms, etc.

You state that this is not proof, this is a supposition. You are supposing that anything that resembles a language is made by intelligent beings. But the language of math disproves that.

But I also stated that it could be considered a logical argument. Mathematics consists of procedures, calculations, and properties...all of which were discovered and founded based upon the interpretation of intelligent beings. So, the "language of math" could also be speculated to be the creation of man, because it merely relates to finding coherent algorithms behind specific sets of circumstances and explicit quantities.

If these theories are logical or have proof, spit 'em out

If it's unlikely that you're going to find logic behind my reasoning, I see little reason to express it. I also don't see immediate reason to defend why I believe that God exists, because it's just my belief...and I've stated this many times. I'm not expecting people to adhere to my beliefs just because I believe in them. If someone is truly interested in hearing why I believe what I do, or wants to learn more about my beliefs, then I'll be happy to share. If they're merely trying to get me to spill my guts, just so that they can further try to discredit me, then I'll leave well enough alone and conclude that it's just a personal belief...personal to me, though not to you.

I don't believe in attacking people, I do believe in attacking beliefs.

But if you attack what someone truly believes and has undeniable faith in, then in essence, you're still attacking them. Many people hold their faiths very close to them, and simply aren't accustomed to having their beliefs attacked. (This doesn't happen much in their day-to-day lives, or Sunday School, etc.) I'm not as quick to get irate as many other Christians, because I've developed a sort of tolerance to religious indifference.

That's good to hear, as disregarding information on evolution does nothing to help anyone else's viewpoint anyways.

But people will not believe you if you have claims without backing proof, it's that simple. Otherwise, I could tell you that I flew yesterday by flapping my arms really fast, and cry foul when someone calls me a liar.

This is circular logic, and doesn't necessarily apply to those with opposing viewpoints. Mainly because what I consider to be proof, you may just consider to be a coincidental set of circumstances...or may even disregard them in their entirety. In most cases, this still doesn't prove that they're untrue...it just proves that you find little relevance in the matters being discussed.

[dragonrider]

I knew this thread would quickly turn into one of those in which each post is an incredibly long series of quotes and rebuttals. I find that style hard to read and even harder to write. I guess it is the only way to handle some of these topics in this kind of medium, but it makes me wish I could just sit down and talk some of this through, because it would go a lot faster and there woudl be fewer misunderstandings.

Anyway, I am not going to post a long series of quotes and rebuttals because it seems to take me all day to compose one of those. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Can someone tell me if there is a quicker way to quote a series of snippets than to quote the entire original post and then chop out the parts you don't want? And how do you do that 20 times in one post?

There is one quote I do need to rebut, because it is a complete misunderstanding of what I said, and the misunderstanding indicates that someone thought I said something idiotic, which is not the case:

Please, don't insult my intelligence by making irrational assumptions like this. Assumptions that my only logical arguments are derived from arguments found in the Spirituality section of Cannabis.com! But, based on this little quip, I'll just assume that this is the only place where you are able to make solid conclusions of your own arguments, and that you should also reach out to threads/websites/documents other than those presented here. There's a whole wealth of knowledge outside of Cannabis.com, you know...:wtf:

That quote is in reference to my statement:

I'm not going to get into the logical arguments and empirical evidence FOR evolutionary theory in this thread, because they are so well covered in other threads. But I will assert that if you go check the arguments in those threads, or better yet, research outside this forum, you will find plenty of empirical evidence for the theory.

If you read what I said, I think we are in agreement. This forum is the last place I would look for evidence for any of my beliefs! Gawd! I come here mostly to read about people's crazy stoned pot-smoking stories and get new cannibis recipes! Somehow, against my better judgement, I get sucked into these other discussions, but I do not come here to learn about science or religion!

My point in my original quote was that I didn't need to present a case here for evolutionary theory because it is well covered in this forum, and outside of it. If you look at the people who have posted in this thread, they are all the same people who have participated in those other threads I am talking about, so let's not waste time rehashing all of those arguments and stick to the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that there is a logical fallacy in saying that if one thing is not true, then a particular alternative is true. That is not an argument rooted in Logic.

Like Mathematics, Logic is a codified system of reasoning with very strict rules. Those rules prohibit certain kinds of fallacies that everyone uses everyday. Many of the logical fallacies that people use everyday are accepted forms of reasoning, but they are not logical according to the codified rules of Logic. For example, someone might say, "George Bush is an idiot, and everything he ever said was a self-serving lie, so if he says Iran wants The Bomb, it's not true." First, you might not accept the premise at all, and I do not mean to open up a political discussion. (Please, God. No!) But if you were to accept the premise of the statement, that George Bush is an idiot, and everything he ever said was a self-serving lie, then you might accept the conclusion of the statement. But the argument is not rooted in Logic. According to the rules of Logic, it is a logical fallacy to say that just because a person has always lied in the past, that any particular statement they make is not true, even if that is an acceptable form of reasoning for most people.

The video points to a different kind of logical fallacy that is somtimes used in the argument for creationism/ID as a scientific theory. The video is limited in its scope, and the particular fallacy it discusses is the kind of argument that states: because evolution cannot explain this particular phenomenon, for example irreducible complexity, it is logical to conclude that the phenomenon can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer. You may or may not accept the premise that evolutionary theory fails to explain the particular phenomenon, but even if you do, it is a logical fallacy according to the rules of Logic to arrive at the conclusion that the phenomenon can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer. It might be an acceptable kind of reasoning for some people, but it is a logical fallacy.

Now I am not going to say that anyone here has made that kind of argument. So I do not want to hear anyone say that I have misstated their personal arguments for creationism/ID. I am just saying that I have heard those kinds of arguments before, and those kinds of argumants are rooted in a logical fallacy.

Another kind of logical fallacy that is not discussed in the video that I have sometimes heard used as an argument for creationism/ID is an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority fallacy is an argument that is sort of like the George Bush example I gave, but which takes a positive form, instead of a neagitve form. It's an argument based on the idea that a particular authority is always right, so anything that authority says is true. In some creationism/ID arguments, the authority is the Bible, scripture or religious authorities. Again, I am not attacking anyone's particular arguments made in this thread. And I accept that some people feel that appeals to the authority of the Bible, scripture or religious authorities are an acceptable kind of reasoning. I am just saying that those kinds of arguments are a form of logical fallacy according to the codified rules of Logic.

Personally, I do not care whether other people believe in evolution or in creationism/ID. I am not going to attack another person's beliefs. But if a person claims that their beliefs are scientific or logical, then I will take them seriously and discuss whether they have followed the methods required by these strict systems of reasoning. I object to arguments that claim to be logical, when in fact they are fallacies according to the strict rules of Logic. Science also has strict rules and methods, and I object when people make arguments that they claim are scientific, when those arguments violate the rules and methods of science. My objections are not an attack on that person's belief's, they are a defense of science and logic.

Likewise, I do not like it when people misuse science to desparage another person's beliefs. For example, I do not like it when a person argues that God does not exist simply because he cannot be proven to exist. That is a misuse of science. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and science needs to be honest about its limits in order to maintain it's credibility.

I defend the separation of science and religion. Both are limited in scope and need to keep out of each other's turf, otherwise they both come away tainted. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that there does not need to be a conflict between religion and science, and i think that is true as long as each keeps within it's own scope. Picture this kind of discussion:

"I believe that the universe began in a cosmic explosion and the natural processes of physics, biology and evolution shaped everything we see in the world today."

"Do you believe that God had anything to do with it?"

"It doesn't matter to me whether God exists. I can't prove it either way. I just like understanding how it all works, and I think that as long as we keep investigating the physical world, we will eventually understand all of the physical processes we see occuring in the universe."

"Well, I believe that God created all the heavens and the earth and all the creatures in it."

"Got any proof of that?"

"No, I have no physical proof. It's what I have always been taught by the people I respect most, and when I look at the awesome wonder of nature, I feel in my soul that it must be a divine creation and part of a larger purpose and plan."

"So it is not a scientific conclusion, it's a belief?"

"Yes, it is my belief."

"That's cool. Got any weed?"

"Got some of God's green herb right here!"

"Awesome! Want to get high and go look through my telescope?"

[Mr. Clandestine]

Anyway, I am not going to post a long series of quotes and rebuttals because it seems to take me all day to compose one of those. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Agreed, it can get monotonous very fast when you have so many particular quotes you want to respond to. I'll refrain from picking apart your post, to make it easier on both of us!

If you read what I said, I think we are in agreement. This forum is the last place I would look for evidence for any of my beliefs! Gawd! I come here mostly to read about people's crazy stoned pot-smoking stories and get new cannabis recipes! Somehow, against my better judgment, I get sucked into these other discussions, but I do not come here to learn about science or religion!

Agreed, once again. I signed up in this forum for the exact same reason you did, yet still somehow manage to either incite theological discussions or end up on the receiving end of theoretical arguments pretty frequently. I must admit, though, it has been a long while since I've had the time to give my personal point-of-views on the matter...and it's bringing back some fond memories!

As for the correlations you pointed out about George Bush, I agree with them wholeheartedly, too. I harbor a little disdain towards evangelical Christians, especially hypocritical ones, and have just never been able to take anything he says or does seriously. Not because of his religious preference, even though I don't agree with many evangelical principles, but because of his enormous sense of greed for power. He and Cheney, alike. And while I can't say that I'd vote for Hillary in the upcoming elections, I do think this country is due for a change in political policy. Don't worry, I detest political arguments as much as you do. At least with theological debates, both sides can generally walk away with a good understanding of the argument they just had. With political debates, usually everyone just ends up yelling at one another, then walking away angry because they got yelled at. It's so inane.

"That's cool. Got any weed?"

"Got some of God's green herb right here!"

"Awesome! Want to get high and go look through my telescope?"

LOL! That's awesome! More people need to be able to think along these lines and stop thinking along the lines that divide us. There's always room for difference in opinion, in fact, that's healthy. But when someone gets so completely up-in-arms just because they can't settle a disagreement with another person civilly, it's just sad. I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from with my arguments, even if you find little logic behind my theories. That shows that you have an open mind.

Take care.

[palerider7777]

i like how the guy or whoever starts off by saying it's dumb to believe in 1 or the other. as there could be another way all this happened, but then call only the people that believe in id stupid, and starts to show his true colors, and what he really believes in evo.and the thing is if this is true and there is no god. like most on here believe then thats means all this is happening with no purpose, and that means our life really has no purpose at all. as we all just happened now that makes me feel good about life. wow we all have no purpose that has a good ring to it, and to think i thought there was a reason to all this bullshit, "life" guess not.

[palerider7777]

As for the correlations you pointed out about George Bush, I agree with them wholeheartedly, too. I harbor a little disdain towards evangelical Christians, especially hypocritical ones, and have just never been able to take anything he says or does seriously. Not because of his religious preference, even though I don't agree with many evangelical principles, but because of his enormous sense of greed for power. He and Cheney, alike. And while I can't say that I'd vote for Hillary in the upcoming elections, I do think this country is due for a change in political policy. Don't worry, I detest political arguments as much as you do. At least with theological debates, both sides can generally walk away with a good understanding of the argument they just had. With political debates, usually everyone just ends up yelling at one another, then walking away angry because they got yelled at. It's so inane.

i think there all fucked in the head i won't vote for any rep or dems untill i see them doing what they preach they'll do and i have yet to see any of them be "for the people" so fuck them all i say there all in it doing the same things greed and power is all they care about

i think there all fucked in the head i won't vote for any rep or dems untill i see them doing what they preach they'll do and i have yet to see any of them be "for the people" so fuck them all i say there all in it doing the same things greed and power is all they care about

[Krogith]

Good thing I don't belive in the Bible just because Holes can be poked into science. What Got me started was the fact the in job It talks about Galaxys, the earth being a sphear, The Earth is Hanging apon Nothing. The Bible is not a science text book nor does it try to be one but when it talks about science it's right. In Ecclesiates 1:7 it discribs how water cycles,

These things seem like nothing to some im shure, But we have to remember Job was written by B.C.E. .1473 , and people still thought the earth was Flat untell 1492 C.E. thats some 3000 years earlyer the bible had it down.

In fact the common thinking at the time was Earth sitting on elephants backs standing on a turtle.

Then when you start getting into prophecy, the detail it Crazy. Like the Fall of Babylon, was writen 200 years in advance. The name of the conquering leader is written, then even going into detail of how babylon would be taken.