Intelligent designers down on Dover

The York Dispatch ^ | 9/20/2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

[JohnnyM]

"Observation trumps belief."

So science has observed creation? fancy that

JM

[Vive ut Vivas]

Last time I check 2+2=4 When evo is that clear...you can have your freedom.

You're going to be waiting a long time for the typical American to understand basic science. And for the more complicated stuff? This is why we have people called scientists. Neat, eh?

[narby]

I'm not playing today.

Don't want to talk about reality vs. faith in a book eh?

[JohnnyM]

"Your belief that man evolved from a single cell is just feeling, completely outside of observation"

This is fun. Seems we both have a belief system based on faith.

JM

[narby]

So science has observed creation? fancy that

So the writer of Genesis observed creation? Fancy that.

[PatrickHenry]

When the time comes for you to choose a consort, I hope you'll remember that I never doubted you.

[Vive ut Vivas]

Except that mine is based on obesrvations!

Cool, huh?

P.S. I wouldn't call it a "belief system" any more than I'd call gravity a "belief system".

[harbinger of doom]

So it isn't so much the actual existence of a deity you respect, but rather what other men think of that deity?

If something/someone is trustworthy then it would seem reasonable to trust what they say. As one would continue to look into the claims, that authority would either be validated or invalidated.

To be clear, I'm not referring to the church. I make the authority claim based on the authority Jesus claimed to possess. What He has spoken of regarding man and Himself is reasonable.

BTW, how did arrive at most of what you know? Did you happen to trust the statements of other men initially and then investigate the claims, subsequently affirming or negating what you believed?

I could be wrong but it seems much of what we do know and believe comes by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' (i.e.-trusting what other men say about a certain thing without fully going to the end of it ourselves).

I do enjoy reading these posts. I find them challenging and thought provoking.

[JohnnyM]

"take the Bible on faith"

Yes we take the Word on faith. We believe, by faith, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This is not rocket science. Faith isn't faith if you can prove it. Abraham believed God's Word on faith. Noah believed God's Word on faith. Daniel believed God's on faith, and it was reckoned to them as righteousness. We live by faith, not by sight, so we take it as a compliment when you say as such.

JM

[harbinger of doom]

If you don't mind, I going to go ahead and strike you off that list. :)

[Vive ut Vivas]

If you don't mind, I going to go ahead and strike you off that list. :)

Your loss. My true followers will be rewarded.

[JohnnyM]

"So the writer of Genesis observed creation? Fancy that"

I didnt say he did. But I believe it on faith. Scientists somehow say that their view of creation and origins is fact, and not faith, when they have not observed it. I am being honest. The evolutionist is not.

JM

[JohnnyM]

which one of those links observed creation?

JM

[Vive ut Vivas]

I appreciate the admission. Now you know why the Bible isn't science, because science is not faith, it is observed reality. Good, now the Crevo Debates are settled forever and ever amen.

[Vive ut Vivas]

The first one, The Scientific Method, would be an excellent place to start.

[Dimensio]

Scientists somehow say that their view of creation and origins is fact, and not faith, when they have not observed it.

Do you understand the underlying basis for their conclusions, or are you going by the fallacy that if a phenomena is not 100% understood, it is not understood at all?

[shuckmaster]

Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being,

That's got to be the dumbest most illogical statement of all time! Any time some "higher being" creates something new, it's going to be designed as simplistically as functionally possible. Only evolution can explain unnecessary non functioning complications not being discarded from the design after they're no longer of use.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Might want to check this out

http://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-1939.htm

[JohnnyM]

so you science hasnt observed it. Good to know. Sounds like faith.

JM

[Vive ut Vivas]

Only evolution can explain unnecessary non functioning complications not being discarded from the design after they're no longer of use.

Unless it was designed that way to throw us off. Which he/she/I may or may not have done.