Well one does have the choice of not responding to his posts. Just think if nobody ever posted to any of his threads. Feed them and they will come.

---

[/quote]

Old James

It is a very interesting subject though James (for me it is)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

And "The Theory pf Evolution" never never has stated or proposed that a species can change into another.

Charles Darwin was just 28 years old when, in 1837, he scribbled in a notebook "
one species does change into another"—one of the first hints of his great theory ...

Please be more careful when you post. I do try to be as careful AND accurate as I can. I do sometimes mess up and blow it from time to time but... ...really that is the theory and you are 100% wrong as has everyone else who said the very samething you have here...

Please look up genetic drift or perhaps gene flow.

If two species are linked then it will be they had a common ancestor, probably millions of years ago.

Yes, that would be called a hybrid, a offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera. I believe in this part of Darwin, it can be proven.[/quote]

Just because Darwin wrote that in his book doesn't mean that scientists believe this. The theory of evolution has moved on since then. You will not find this statement taught in schools/universities etc. And your hybrid comments are incorrect. This is also not part of the theory of evolution.

---

LMMFAO!

At almost every post after my last one.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Thank you.

I'm sure we don't agree on many things.

BUT I, even if no one else does, I, appreciate your sense of fair play.

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

Good thing that's just your opinion..................

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

;-) and Your link wont download.

Well, the link I gave works for me, thousands of miles away in the Cradle of Humankind. ;)

This link contains a link to the Smithsonian article. Try it. It's a good read.

---

I did. It's where I got the quote in the first place.

You know, the quote that set your buddies back in their seats, shamed them.

The quote they said Darwin didn't say.

Kinda hard to argue with the Smithsonian, they do science....

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It's not a matter of Faith, it's a fact...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

Ah, the lost art of debating! Here's the vanilla version, and here's my favourite version. Hands up now: who's seen a few logical fallacies lying around in this thread?

---

It's not a matter of Faith, it's a fact...

Wasn't it the other way around? In order to believe a fact, you must have faith...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

It's not a matter of Faith, it's a fact...

Wasn't it the other way around? In order to believe a fact, you must have faith...

Faith in what? That is a critical point and I'm not talking about thermodynamics...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Thank you.

I'm sure we don't agree on many things.

BUT I, even if no one else does, I, appreciate your sense of fair play.

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

What debate?

It cannot be a debate when one party keeps repeating the same old lines and refuses to provide proof or answer questions.

Not true, once again. I have answered questions and given proof.

You're upset I didn't go down the rabbithole with you. I told you I don't do the red/blue pill thing. I just wont accept the red herrings you offer. Bottom line...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Not true, once again. I have answered questions and given proof.

You're upset I didn't go down the rabbithole with you. I told you I don't do the red/blue pill thing. I just wont accept the red herrings you offer. Bottom line...

Hands up all who agree with the statement in bold.

Thank you.

I'm sure we don't agree on many things.

BUT I, even if no one else does, I, appreciate your sense of fair play.

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

What debate?

It cannot be a debate when one party keeps repeating the same old lines and refuses to provide proof or answer questions.

How true, in fact it is hard to consider this thread a converstion with any merit

---

...who's seen a few logical fallacies lying around in this thread?

Don't ask... tripped over a HUGE pile of them then banged my head on an immovable surface... Been lying in a heap in the corner watching spots dance before my eyes ever since... but feeling SO much better for the lie down :) Does mean I'm a little behind though :/ hope no one minds while I catch up?

(Oh, by the way :) had no problem with that link... sorry to hear you did ID)

Hello everyone :) Hi ID (hope you've forgiven my disappointing you in another thread :( I can't be sure because you never replied to my apology)

Ok, firstly, I have to admit to some confusion... :/ so I do hope you're still talking to me :)

ID! :) do you mind if I ask why you married the scientifically determined age of the universe with the 6 day creation event of Judeo-Christian belief... if you don't believe in creationism?

Divide 14 billion by 6. That is how long a day is for the Causal Agent

...before then popping the Causal Agent outside our time line...?

the Causal Agent does not live within our time line, but stands outside of our time

Is this speculation? I only ask because if intelligent design is as you state it to be and not a revamped version of creationism, aren't claims such as those (quoted above) beyond the remit of the intelligent design brief and in fact dragging it back to it's roots – assuming it has left it's roots (like Darwin's initial observations have) of course?

And here's another example where you appear to be flying in the face of ID theory as you state it to be...

Everything around us has been finely tuned for us, human life

Surely you can see your own theory of Intelligent design being made to fit creationist dogma – again?

I mean, I do see what you did there... :) and tried putting it backwards so that it made more sense (“efil namuh ,su rof denut ylenif neeb sah su dnuora gnihtyrevE”) but the horse was designed for the cart? Are you sure? :) How can you be sure that the ultimate design goal for us humans is as an intermediate between the rule of the dinosaur and the rule of the insects (ruled by coackroaches perhaps) with the added bonus that this time the designer doesn't have to arrange for a meteor to smack us right between the eyes as we were perfectly created to bring about our own destruction without any assistance at all...? I accept my speculation as just that. Do your accept yours... or does it stop being speculation as soon as it fits some other narrative... Genesis perhaps? :)

I don't mean for this to be a dissection because I did really enjoy reading Intelligent Design theory as seen through your eyes and can definitely see why you like it.

I applied the logic of the ancients. And logic IS the very first science known to man and is applicable and indeed a real science.

Aah – logic – isn't it lovely? I LOVE logic :) My cat has four legs. That dog has four legs eureka my cat is a dog :) No? My cat is that dog? Still no? My cat and that dog may have a common ancestor perhaps? Oh look! Indeed they do (as Winterknight was so kind to point out - Hi WK! :)

You say you disagree with genetic drift... which really puzzles me... at it's simplest it explains why both my children have blue eyes and I have brown. It explains why we have a full grown cat the size of a kitten and with deformed paws that make her scamper about like a cross between a wallaby and a squirrel... out of a litter of fifteen bog-standard pusscats. :) Who knows what could result were she to ever meet a tomcat who shared the gait that makes her so strange to her housemates... But I digress :)

Given your dislike of red herrings, I hope you'll forgive me if I begin to end on a fishy note... Once upon a time, the Roman Catholic Church classified beavers, capybara, ducks, otters and many other mammals as fish suitable for eating on Fridays. And those that questioned that were heretic blasphemers. We've learned so much more about the natural world around us since those days, and none of it has been led by any church or any religion.

Intelligence is a concept developed by humanity and measured by humanity. It cannot therefore be applied to a designer surely... unless... that was what we were created for... to come up with the label itself? Intelligence underwrites our arrogance as a species and allows us to feel superior, not just to all other life forms but to one another too. Science on the other hand is where those that accept we do not know very much at all, seek to change that, all the while knowing that every question answered, may well be incomplete until further questions are answered etc, etc. Scientists do not stop asking questions... but when all questions seek the point at which to stop at the same answer... as Intelligent design adherents do (as you yourself have stated:

We test it for design.

...all further questions stop... and always at the difficult and most interesting, challenging bit - when the logic of the ancients is then summoned to reach a conclusion.

There is nowhere to go with such a hypothesis. It can never lead to further knowledge unless the next question is aimed at finding out something about the supposed designer/causal agent which is something Intelligent design adherents claim they do not do as it is beyond their remit...

So... do you mind if I ask again, why you married the scientifically determined age of the universe with the 6 day creation event of Judeo-Christian belief... if you don't believe in creationism? :)

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

Ah, the lost art of debating! Here's the vanilla version, and here's my favourite version. Hands up now: who's seen a few logical fallacies lying around in this thread?

I'm fond of the vanilla version.

How about you anniet?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

Ah, the lost art of debating! Here's the vanilla version, and here's my favourite version. Hands up now: who's seen a few logical fallacies lying around in this thread?

I'm fond of the vanilla version.

How about you anniet?

Oh thank you for asking ID! :) I can definitely see the attraction of the vanilla version :) but there's nothing like a good dip into and a thorough knowledge of the role logical fallacy plays in debate :) It really helps to develop critical thinking skills... :)

Critical thinking is the ability to apply reasoning and logic to new or unfamiliar ideas, opinions, and situations. Thinking critically involves seeing things in an open-minded way and examining an idea or concept from as many angles as possible. This important skill allows people to look past their own views of the world and to better understand the opinions of others. It is often used in debates, to form more cogent and well-rounded arguments, and in science.

I do like trying to be open-minded you see... even though it does create some... well... awful draughts up there sometimes :)

It is damned unfortunate that none that have posted here know the art of debate.

Ah, the lost art of debating! Here's the vanilla version, and here's my favourite version. Hands up now: who's seen a few logical fallacies lying around in this thread?

I'm fond of the vanilla version.

How about you anniet?

Oh thank you for asking ID! :) I can definitely see the attraction of the vanilla version :) but there's nothing like a good dip into and a thorough knowledge of the role logical fallacy plays in debate :) It really helps to develop critical thinking skills... :)

Critical thinking is the ability to apply reasoning and logic to new or unfamiliar ideas, opinions, and situations. Thinking critically involves seeing things in an open-minded way and examining an idea or concept from as many angles as possible. This important skill allows people to look past their own views of the world and to better understand the opinions of others. It is often used in debates, to form more cogent and well-rounded arguments, and in science.

I do like trying to be open-minded you see... even though it does create some... well... awful draughts up there sometimes :)

You don't want to be so open minded that everything falls out.

---

Reality Internet Personality