Doctrines or the Bible...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have modified my views in the light of a more deeper understanding, for i realised that it could not be categorically proven due to the nature of God and therefore it remains a plausibility. This does not mean that i do not think that creationism is unscientific, quite the contrary, its simply a different evaluation of scientific data, that is all, as i have clearly shown, with one simple example.

"for i realised that it could not be categorically proven due to the nature of God"
Oh, thank you. Then it is not scientific. You say so yourself.

You opinion, however...

Can we end this futile debate now?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps you can show where he has proffered some spiritual insight, for as far as i can discern he is simply content to tear away at the spirituality of others with nothing but non spirituality, vague assertions of ignorance, pretence of knowledge and a total apathy towards those who do not share his views on the emergence and diversity of life.

Perhaps you could show me where you have proffered some spiritual insight? We'll go from there if you wish to continue this line of thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have modified my views in the light of a more deeper understanding, for i realised that it could not be categorically proven due to the nature of God and therefore it remains a plausibility. This does not mean that i do not think that creationism is unscientific, quite the contrary, its simply a different evaluation of scientific data, that is all, as i have clearly shown, with one simple example.

Rob, you've proved absolutley nothing.

Simply stating - 'I believe the owls feather to be designed', doesn't mean it is. I know you have a high opinion of your self importance and intellect but even by your standards this is arrogance in the extreme.

i have modified my views in the light of a more deeper understanding

More like you realised you were talking a load of cobblers, this is what you originally said -

I advocate creationism because it is scientifically sound

Now it just remains a plausibility. What happenned for you to modify your view so much?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Perhaps you could show me where you have proffered some spiritual insight? We'll go from there if you wish to continue this line of thought.

so you cannot show, not one instance, well that is really most convincing and quite telling, next time you take on a client, make sure you check his credentials. As for me i have provided many references, we shall take one or two just by way of example, the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its meaning, something of great significance to christians, the different nuances of the Holy spirit and its interpretations, textual criticisms of portions of scriptures having a direct bearing on doctrine, historical debates on festivals, the role of conscience, the definition of a Christian etc etc etc.

now you can go or take it wherever you like!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you cannot show, not one instance, well that is really most convincing and quite telling, next time you take on a client, make sure you check his credentials. As for me i have provided many references, we shall take one just by way of example, the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its meaning, something of great significance to christian ...[text shortened]... nce, the definition of a Christian etc etc etc.

now you can go or take it wherever you like!

As long you don't mix science with religion, then you can believe in your Intelligent Design how much you want.
But when you tell us that your religion is science, then I object.

If you have creationism as your religion, then I don't have any problem.
But don't redefine science as your opinion, or a plausabilty according to your opinion...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Rob, you've proved absolutley nothing.

Simply stating - 'I believe the owls feather to be designed', doesn't mean it is. I know you have a high opinion of your self importance and intellect but even by your standards this is arrogance in the extreme.

[b]i have modified my views in the light of a more deeper understanding

More like yo ...[text shortened]... ]

Now it just remains a plausibility. What happenned for you to modify your view so much?[/b]

noobster what is it about, 'it cannot be categorically proven', that you do not understand? did i state that i have proven anything, no, well what are you talking about. Yes of course it does not mean that it is, we are not saying that, all we are saying is that it is plausible, please remember this word, plausible, go away and write it down, get a stamp made and stamp it to Fabians forehead, plausible.

look dear Noobster, if you want to believe, that the stealth capabilities and the amazing design inherent in the owls feather was the result of some bit of excess scale from a reptile that managed over millions of years which managed to develop it into a super strong, super light aerodynamic structure which just happens to have stealth capabilities perfectly suited to characteristics and habits of its possessor, then well who am i to say, 'what a load of cobblers', its your belief. For me it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that than it does in an intelligent designer.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
As long you don't mix science with religion, then you can believe in your Intelligent Design how much you want.
But when you tell us that your religion is science, then I object.

If you have creationism as your religion, then I don't have any problem.
But don't redefine science as your opinion, or a plausabilty according to your opinion...

you have still failed to answer why observing the natural world and drawing conclusions from it, is unscientific.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have still failed to answer why observing the natural world and drawing conclusions from it, is unscientific.

I've never said that. If so, where?
Observing nature can very well be science. Darwin did it and showed remarkable results.
Intelligent Design, however, is religon, and therefore by its very nature (!) a part of a religion.
And, as you already know, religion and science can never mix.

You once more fail to show why ID is science. Because it isn't science.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I've never said that. If so, where?
Observing nature can very well be science. Darwin did it and showed remarkable results.
Intelligent Design, however, is religon, and therefore by its very nature (!) a part of a religion.
And, as you already know, religion and science can never mix.

You once more fail to show why ID is science. Because it isn't science.

therefore if i observe the natural world and draw conclusions from that observation, its scientific, well thankyou, that is all that intelligent design seeks to do.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
therefore if i observe the natural world and draw conclusions from that observation, its scientific, well thankyou, that is all that intelligent design seeks to do.

Seeks to, but fail.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
noobster what is it about, 'it cannot be categorically proven', that you do not understand? did i state that i have proven anything, no, well what are you talking about. Yes of course it does not mean that it is, we are not saying that, all we are saying is that it is plausible, please remember this word, plausible, go away and write it down, get a ...[text shortened]... me it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that than it does in an intelligent designer.

Why do you spoil every thread with your empty comments and your infantile behaviour? Its the same rubbish you write over and over. Your fellow JW Galveston at least makes his points and then knows when a discussion is futile and backs off. When are you going to learn that skill? Or are you just provoking people so that you can foolishly claim that you are a persecuted Christian therefore one of the chosen?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Seeks to, but fail.

I see, but the process is still scientific according to your view its just that the conclusions are wrong.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Why do you spoil every thread with your empty comments and your infantile behaviour? Its the same rubbish you write over and over. Your fellow JW Galveston at least makes his points and then knows when a discussion is futile and backs off. When are you going to learn that skill? Or are you just provoking people so that you can foolishly claim that you are a persecuted Christian therefore one of the chosen?

Noobster and Fabian are engaging me in conversation, what has it got to do with you? Nothing, absolutely nothing, so take a hike and tell it to someone that wants to read your posts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, but the process is still scientific according to your view its just that the conclusions are wrong.

(1) Your conclusion is wrong. Dead wrong.
(2) Creationism has nothing to do with science, not even if it is disguised in a fancy wordings like Intelligent Design.