Originally posted by robbie carrobie
intelligent design is based on the probability, please remember that Fabian, the probability that complex life forms could not have arisen by chance. They seem to be too organised, to complex, too fully functioning, so that without intelligence it would have been highly improbable that they should exist and function. This forms it basis. thus the intelligence behind these incredible biological systems is thought to be God.

Are you follower of ID now?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
intelligent design is based on the probability, please remember that Fabian, the probability that complex life forms could not have arisen by chance. They seem to be too organised, to complex, too fully functioning, so that without intelligence it would have been highly improbable that they should exist and function. This forms it basis. thus the intelligence behind these incredible biological systems is thought to be God.

Okay, this intelligence is god in your opinion. Therefore no science, therefore religion.

So if your id-god cannot be observed by scientific methods, then what are we talking about? How would you like to prove the existance of god, if no scientific methods can be used?

When you say god, do you mean the christian god, or can it be any god?

Look at the questions I gave. They are supposed to be answered, not avoided. I hate to remind you of your habitual avoidance, but when I don't you usually avoid the questions.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you follower of ID now?

He is whatever feel appropriate at the moment. He changes his mind at a whim. One time, within the same sentence, he changed his mind. It happened so fast he even didn't noticed it himself. And one posting later he took it all back.

Once I explained evolution for him, without actually calling it 'evolution'. He agreed in every point. So when he understands the explanation, he even becomes an evolutionist. Just don't use the e-word. That he doesn't like.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh, i should be used to this manner of debating.


" we have already determined that scripturally the two are mutually exclusive."
no we haven't sparky. pay attention. we have determined that christianity and evolution are not connected. mutually exclusive would entail something in one contradicting the other.

so we have two theories that we hold to that says one theory (evolution or christianity) has to be wrong for the other to be right.

umm i am sorry Zaspanky you have failed to notice the wording, ''scripturally mutually exclusive''. See that, ''scripturally', we did agree that there was no scriptural basis did we not? Yes it would entail something in one contradicting the other like, 'God created everything according to their kinds', 'and the diversity of life has arisen through gradual changes at a molecular level'. Both contradictory and mutually exclusive , for either the life forms were created according to their kinds or they transmuttated, they cannot be one and the same. So pay attention Spanky, if you please.

Are you therefore willing to concede that in order for you to accept the premise that God put into motion the evolutionary process, one must ignore completely certain parts of the Bible?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you follower of ID now?

it depend Noobster, for these things are constantly changing and there are conflicting ideas even among creationists. i hold that there is design in living things, yes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it depend Noobster, for these things are constantly changing and there are conflicting ideas even among creationists. i hold that there is design in living things, yes.

So you are an IDer, right? You're not a simple creationist anymore?

Who is this Noobster? User 196163 hasn't been activ for years...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, this intelligence is god in your opinion. Therefore no science, therefore religion.

So if your id-god cannot be observed by scientific methods, then what are we talking about? How would you like to prove the existance of god, if no scientific methods can be used?

When you say god, do you mean the christian god, or can it be any god?

Look at ...[text shortened]... ate to remind you of your habitual avoidance, but when I don't you usually avoid the questions.

the method is scientific, the conclusions drawn are of a religious nature. There are qualities of God that can be observed, not actually God himself for no one observes God. i did post a scripture making this quite clear.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So you are an IDer, right? You're not a simple creationist anymore?

Who is this Noobster? User 196163 hasn't been activ for years...

i think the statement speaks for itself, i believe that God created and i believe that there is design in living things, what the deal? Please try to stay on track, this is not about my beliefs, its about why some 'christians', accept evolution!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm i am sorry Zaspanky you have failed to notice the wording, ''scripturally mutually exclusive''. See that, ''scripturally', we did agree that there was no scriptural basis did we not? Yes it would entail something in one contradicting the other like, 'God created everything according to their kinds', 'and the diversity of life has arisen through ...[text shortened]... tion the evolutionary process, one must ignore completely certain parts of the Bible?

of course you do. you already ignore certain parts. you already stopped stoning your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. other parts you twist to your own ends.

the flood story is preposterous on its own. it doesn't need evolution to tell it it's wrong. that is what i am still trying to get through to you. evolution and the bible are independent. you must treat each on its own. and by treating the bible means you give up the genesis story, you retain the moral of how the humans fell from grace, you dismiss the flood and retain how if you do wrong, you get punished and if you do right you will get rewarded. the jonah story has just as much moral meaning if you remove the freakin whale from the story. jesus gives love lessons and not physics or biology lessons. if you remeve these parts from the bible, it would give the exact same message and only last for about 100 pages. (well more, keep psalms and proverbs they are pretty nice.)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course you do. you already ignore certain parts. you already stopped stoning your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. other parts you twist to your own ends.

the flood story is preposterous on its own. it doesn't need evolution to tell it it's wrong. that is what i am still trying to get through to you. evolution and the bibl ...[text shortened]... nd only last for about 100 pages. (well more, keep psalms and proverbs they are pretty nice.)

thankyou Zhalanzi, in order to make room for the evolutionary idea we must ignore certain parts of the Bible. What are we to do, when Christ, Peter, Paul quote from the flood account, quote from the book of Genesis? make references to Sodom and Gomorrah? must we say to ourselves these are simple metaphors that did not really happen for they contradict the theory of evolution?

Would you agree or not that what has indeed transpired is that rather than there being two mutual theories, what in fact has occurred is that one has encroached upon and supplanted the other?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think the statement speaks for itself, i believe that God created and i believe that there is design in living things, what the deal? Please try to stay on track, this is not about my beliefs, its about why some 'christians', accept evolution!

Why should a christian not accept eveloution in your opinion?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Why should a christian not accept eveloution in your opinion?

It is opposed to the teachings of Christ and the revealed word of God. In order to make room for it one must ignore huge sections of scripture as Zhalansi has actively shown.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the method is scientific, the conclusions drawn are of a religious nature. There are qualities of God that can be observed, not actually God himself for no one observes God. i did post a scripture making this quite clear.

The method isn't scientific. Do you know how many articles that have made a case for ID have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

One, and that was quickly withdrawn by the publisher.

This statement from the Council of Europe Parliament - The Dangers of Creationsim in Education sums it up nicely

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm (my italics)

ID is religion masquerading as pseudo-science, nothing more or less.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is opposed to the teachings of Christ and the revealed word of God. In order to make room for it one must ignore huge sections of scripture as Zhalansi has actively shown.

Can you give me a specific example where Christ said he opposed evolution?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think the statement speaks for itself, i believe that God created and i believe that there is design in living things, what the deal? Please try to stay on track, this is not about my beliefs, its about why some 'christians', accept evolution!

No, it is about your beliefs. I want to know how you can make ID to a science, how you can dismiss evolution as pseudo-science. How you opinion can be so strong when you know so little about evolution.

You belive that your christian god created biology. This makes you a creationist, not an IDer. You don't belive in an intelligent designer, any designer. You belive that your christian god created the lot. If you read Genisis, I don't see any intelligence behind. ID is only a word that makes it sound like science, and you fell for it.

I asked you a question: "When you say god, do you mean the christian god, or can it be any god?" I just wanted a short answer. Instead you avoid the question, and let me to believe whatever I want about your views. These conclusion you later deny with something like "I've never said that!". Therefore I ask you again:

"When you say god, do you mean the christian god, or can it be any god?"

The next step in the robbie retorics is to become rude and aggressive, calling people names, acting like a child. (Would you like to quote your outbursts from earlier, robbie? I hope not. It's quite embarrassing.) Let's not go to this stadium, robbie.