Intelligent Design: Confronting Darwin with New Scientific Insights Intelligent Design, Part I

M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E ^ | 2002 AD | by Justin Hart

[RnMomof7]

I was physically abused by my mom..you know if your mom does not love you who does?

Perhaps I was "luckier" than you . I have heard that people abused by their dads have a difficult time relating to a loving father.

Me?? I was an agnostic for a while..but when I met Christ and I raced intop His arms

Aric..no matter what you end up believeing the biggest thing is to forgive the abuser...not for them ...for you

My mon is gone But I was still able to forgive her..I pray the same peace for you!

[Hank Kerchief]

I do not like socalled ceremonies, they make me uncomfortable, because you are expected to believe as everyone else does. And I do not, so I do what I feel is right for myself.

I do not like ceremonies, or rituals, or any other practice prescribed by an organized religion. I also do not accept any "creed" of any orgnaized religion. I really do understand, not only why you believe that much, but, in fact agree with you.

The one thing you stated that I would like to question is the phrase, "so I do what I feel is right for myself". I do not question what you do being for yourself, but the suggestion that how you determine what is good for is by your feelings, rather than your best rational understanding. Feelings are very deceptive, and are non-cognitive. I hope you were only using an expression and actually mean you do what you understand, using your best reason, is best for you.

I told you I believe the Bible, and if you hang around these threads you will see I don't take it lightly, and know it pretty well. My beleif in it is based on my best rational judgement of all that I know, not any kind of blind faith.

If you believe the Bible teaches anything that you cannot rationally agree with, it will either be something the Bible does not actually teach, but some organized religion calling itself Christian says it does, or you have not understood it. This is what I think, but you could easily prove me wrong.

Try something for me, will you? Ask me about anything in the Bible you believe makes it untrue, something you believe the Bible teaches that you believe is rationally unacceptable.

I will honestly answer what I believe the Bible actually teaches regarding that point. Test me. It will be good for me. It might be good for you, too. It can't hurt?

Thanks! Hank

[Aric2000]

That actually might be fun.

As far as doing what I feel is right is concerned. Feelings really have nothing to do with it, and I should not have put it that way.

I think about every action I take, if I do this, who will it effect and how, if it will effect them in a good way, then it is OK, but if it will effect them in a bad way, then step back, rethink and approach it from another direction, or don't do it at all. It takes a lot of will, because we are selfish creatures by nature.

It might be fun to do what you are talking about, let me think on it and maybe I'll give it a shot in a few day.

[xzins]

That's pretty much what the article says that I posted....except for the Feminazi sociology....that sounds like a "Gold Rush" addition.

[Hank Kerchief]

That actually might be fun.

I think so too, and no one has to be convinced. It will give us both a chance to sharpen our swords without actually sticking anyone.

Hank

[Aric2000]

LOL, indeed!! Let us sharpen away then, expect something within the next few days.

[The Grammarian]

Interesting article. I know too many Wiccans that think theirs is an 'ancient' religion. This article is very insightful. Thanks. ;)

[FormerLib]

It's a great one for the personal file, imho.

You'd better believe that I've bookmarked this nugget of truth!

[donh]

Your bud did not need to respond, of course. But when he chose to, it was indeed an ad hominem attack to argue that the argument of the proponent was unworthy of response because of the proponent's 'associations'.

It may be poor sportsmanship, it may be bad form, but to qualify as an ad hominem, there must be an actual attempt to denegrate the arguer. What you have here is bad manners, which you are entitled to point out, but not an ad hominem, except by stretching the definition beyond anything easily warranted. Is a contempuous smirk an ad hominem argument? Jerky behavior comes in categories--you can't just call everything dismissive an ad hominem argument. The boat will sink under the load, and the phrase will become valueless. A fallacious argument requires, first of all, an argument.

[winstonchurchill]

It may be poor sportsmanship, it may be bad form, but to qualify as an ad hominem, there must be an actual attempt to denegrate the arguer.

Well, this has already gone on too long, so here's one more attempt to close the gap. I think I agree with you with a caveat.

The dictionary definition says, " ... marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made..." So I suppose that in the context of your friend's 'response', whether it was an 'ad hominem' attack depends on whether, by assigning my response to an unrelated group ("creationists") to which he referred in derision, he was attempting to launch "an attack on an opponent's character." My point would be that there would be no other reason to purport to align me with an unrelated group.

He surely didn't do it to build me up. Be that as it may, I guess I'll be satisfied with the admission of your friend's "poor sportsmanship [and] bad form."

[donh]

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level? How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Specific antigens created by the body's immune system would be an example of "organs" that are not created by successive, slight modifications. Darwin's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, successive modification does not turn out to be the primary means by which biological micromachines like flagella and such are built. The body has a spare parts inventory it plays around with--the immune system is an example of that which we've managed to gain a clear understanding of, but is clearly not the only such.

[donh]

He surely didn't do it to build me up. Be that as it may, I guess I'll be satisfied with the admission of your friend's "poor sportsmanship [and] bad form."

It may be. It also may be exhaustion with the bad manners, bullying attitudes, zany left-field arguments, and underhanded crying-to-mommy tactics of certain creationists, or creationist look-alikes, here on this thread. Were I of the creationist pursuasion, I'd not be thinking to offer a course on good manners on this particular thread.

[restornu]

Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists Wednesday, August 28, 2002 By Cal Thomas

[restornu]

CTR