Evolution And Bricks

[Rob Osborn]

So called intelligent design presupposes an organism/force so complex that no one has ever or will ever figure it out. That is hubris in the extreme.

 

The end result of ID has a end result as priori.

 

Evolution has no such requirement. We don't throw out landing on the moon just because the Wright brothers didn't do it.

Yeah, procreation by intelligent agents such as you and I is far too complex. Thats all ID presupposes.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, procreation by intelligent agents such as you and I is far too complex. Thats all ID presupposes.

 

ID is just creationism warmed over.

[ERayR]

So called intelligent design presupposes an organism/force so complex that no one has ever or will ever figure it out. That is hubris in the extreme.

 

The end result of ID has a end result as priori.

 

Evolution has no such requirement. We don't throw out landing on the moon just because the Wright brothers didn't do it.

 

And you accuse others of not understanding and misrepresenting macro-evolution.  How disingenuous.

[thesometimesaint]

And you accuse others of not understanding and misrepresenting macro-evolution.  How disingenuous.

 

Incorrect. I've never accused anyone of NOT understanding AND misrepresenting macro-evolution. I said to choose between the two.

 

[cdowis]

So called intelligent design presupposes an organism/force so complex that no one has ever or will ever figure it out. That is hubris in the extreme.

 

It is interesting that you find it necessary to put words in my mouth.  That is hubris.

 

The end result of ID has a end result as priori.

 

Huh?

 

Evolution has no such requirement. We don't throw out landing on the moon just because the Wright brothers didn't do it.

 

It was still human intelligence that landed a man on the moon regardless of WHO did it.  However, if you were making the claim that evolution did it, you need to demonstrate it step by step.

[cdowis]

ID is just creationism warmed over.

 

 

OK, and I could make the assertion that evolution is just Lemarkism.  See how easy it is to make an assertion?

 

As I have said before, if you are going to post a ONE HOUR video, you need to give us a summary, rather than expect us to do to your job for you.  Get off your couch and make your argument, pleeze.

 

Tell us specifically his qualifications, for example, to speak on the subject ===>>>>>  Is he familiar with the LDS concept of the creation, and does his lecture address this.  Or is he talking about the apostate Christian definition, using "creation by poof."

 

Give us a brief summary of his argument if you think he actually has a valid argument. He has to use a cogent argument using the correct, valid assumptions and void or logical flaws.  I'm not going to spend an hour of my time to do your job.

Edited April 15, 2014 by cdowis

[ERayR]

Incorrect. I've never accused anyone of NOT understanding AND misrepresenting macro-evolution. I said to choose between the two.

 

 

 

Post 102

 

You are being utterly ridiculous. High rise building construction and mushroom cultivation have more in common.

[Vance]

100% for any organism that has posterity.

Your answer presumes facts not in evidence. 

[Rob Osborn]

ID is just creationism warmed over.

Yeah I almost forgot, you are against the Creation.

[thesometimesaint]

OK, and I could make the assertion that evolution is just Lemarkism.  See how easy it is to make an assertion?

 

As I have said before, if you are going to post a ONE HOUR video, you need to give us a summary, rather than expect us to do to your job for you.  Get off your couch and make your argument, pleeze.

 

Tell us specifically his qualifications, for example, to speak on the subject ===>>>>>  Is he familiar with the LDS concept of the creation, and does his lecture address this.  Or is he talking about the apostate Christian definition, using "creation by poof."

 

Give us a brief summary of his argument if you think he actually has a valid argument. He has to use a cogent argument using the correct, valid assumptions and void or logical flaws.  I'm not going to spend an hour of my time to do your job.

 

Evolution is not Lamarkism. Lamarkism is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. that idea has been thoroughly debunked. So called Intelligent design is just creationism warmed over. From Panda's and People "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view".

 

Stay on your couch and watch a video. It is far easier than doing scientific research. Here is who Dr. Kenneth Miller is Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University.^[1] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.^[2][3] Miller is noted as a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.^[4] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin's God, which argues that acceptance of evolution is compatible with a belief in God; and Only a Theory, which explores ID and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case as well as its implications in science across America.

 

Of what importance is the belief in a specific God(s) to science? Can I accept the the Theory of Gravity and be a Jew, Einstein was enough of a Jew that a certain political party in Germany of the 1930's and 40's wanted to murder him. He expanded The Theory of Gravity to the very large scale,  or since Newton was an Anglican must I be an Anglican? 

Edited April 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah I almost forgot, you are against the Creation.

 

I never said that. What I have said is that I am perfectly comfortable with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world.

[Rob Osborn]

I never said that. What I have said is that I am perfectly comfortable with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world.

And yet you bash over and over again those who hold a view of creation by an intelligent God.

[thesometimesaint]

And yet you bash over and over again those who hold a view of creation by an intelligent God.

 

I don't bash those who hold a view of creation by an intelligent God. Where have ever I said that God doesn't exist or that belief in God is (Pick any derogatory term).  I simply can't use God in science. Because of factors I've already stated.

 

The Church agrees. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter,... .

[Rob Osborn]

I don't bash those who hold a view of creation by an intelligent God. Where have ever I said that God doesn't exist or that belief in God is (Pick any derogatory term).  I simply can't use God in science. Because of factors I've already stated.

 

The Church agrees. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter,... .

You bash on intelligent design people, you belittle us, you make eroneous claims, etc. The scriptures tell us that Adam is Gods son not a son of a monkey. The Church has always maintained that man did not evolve.

[thesometimesaint]

You bash on intelligent design people, you belittle us, you make eroneous claims, etc. The scriptures tell us that Adam is Gods son not a son of a monkey. The Church has always maintained that man did not evolve.

 

I do not bash you. I reject your arguments as unsupported by the evidence. I have given ample reasons as to why that is. You have given me your religion as a response.

 

Where have I made any erroneous claims about so called Intelligent Design. This is a formal CFR.

 

Evolution doesn't claim we are sons of monkey. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

 

The Church takes no position on Evolution. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J.Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Edited April 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

And yet in 2002 the First Presidency republished the Church stance on evolution that man did not evolve from a lower order of species. That is the official and current position of the Church, not the Encyclopedia, not FAIR, not BYU, etc.

[katherine the great]

I do not bash you. I reject your arguments as unsupported by the evidence. I have given ample reasons as to why that is. You have given me your religion as a response.

 

Where have I made any erroneous claims about so called Intelligent Design. This is a formal CFR.

 

Evolution doesn't claim we are sons of monkey. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

 

The Church takes no position on Evolution. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J.Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Why do you even bother?  I'm weary of this.

[cdowis]

Evolution is not Lamarkism. Lamarkism is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. that idea has been thoroughly debunked.

 

But it is so easy to make an assertion, is it not?  And that was my point, which, apparently, you missed.  Intelligent Design is not "creationism".

 

So called Intelligent design is just creationism warmed over. From Panda's and People "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view".

 

And LDS ideas of creation can and does include aspects of evolution.  So what is your point?

 

Stay on your couch and watch a video. It is far easier than doing scientific research. Here is who Dr. Kenneth Miller is Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University.^[1] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.^[2][3] Miller is noted as a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.^[4] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin's God, which argues that acceptance of evolution is compatible with a belief in God; and Only a Theory, which explores ID and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case as well as its implications in science across America.

 

Of course he has a background in **science** == >> but what is his expertise in LDS theory of creation?  Tell us what he says in those two books on that subject.  Get off your couch and tell us.  i reject the apostate Christian view of creationism, and this is an LDS forum.

 

There are several versions of creationism, the most popular is "creation by poof" which we reject.  So, what version of creationism does he use?  Does the Creator he addresses use natural laws in the creation process, does that creator have an eternity of creation, is there infinite creations throughout the universe?  Is that what he calls "creationism"?  Does his version of creationism allow for evolution as part of those natural laws.

 

Tell us his expertise on the LDS creation process.

 

Of what importance is the belief in a specific God(s) to science? Can I accept the the Theory of Gravity and be a Jew, Einstein was enough of a Jew that a certain political party in Germany of the 1930's and 40's wanted to murder him. He expanded The Theory of Gravity to the very large scale,  or since Newton was an Anglican must I be an Anglican?

 

If you are going to assert, "ID is just creationism", it has EVERYTHING to do with what God you are talking about.  Talk about science and stop blathering about id and creationism and we can ignore which God we worship, but YOU are the one who brought up the subject of creationism, my friend.

 

You are just full of rhetorical tricks == you started the discussion on creationism, you post a one hour video, and immediately run away when I ask some pointed questions.

Edited April 16, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

 

Evolution is not Lamarkism. Lamarkism is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring. that idea has been thoroughly debunked.

 

But it is so easy to make an assertion, is it not?  And that was my point, which, apparently, you missed.  Intelligent Design is not "creationism".

 

So called Intelligent design is just creationism warmed over. From Panda's and People "The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view".

 

And LDS ideas of creation can and does include aspects of evolution.  So what is your point?

 

Stay on your couch and watch a video. It is far easier than doing scientific research. Here is who Dr. Kenneth Miller is Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University.^[1] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.^[2][3] Miller is noted as a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.^[4] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin's God, which argues that acceptance of evolution is compatible with a belief in God; and Only a Theory, which explores ID and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case as well as its implications in science across America.

 

Of course he has a background in **science** == >> but what is his expertise in LDS theory of creation?  Tell us what he says in those two books on that subject.  Get off your couch and tell us.  i reject the apostate Christian view of creationism, and this is an LDS forum.

 

There are several versions of creationism, the most popular is "creation by poof" which we reject.  So, what version of creationism does he use?  Does the Creator he addresses use natural laws in the creation process, does that creator have an eternity of creation, is there infinite creations throughout the universe?  Is that what he calls "creationism"?  Does his version of creationism allow for evolution as part of those natural laws.

 

Tell us his expertise on the LDS creation process.

 

Of what importance is the belief in a specific God(s) to science? Can I accept the the Theory of Gravity and be a Jew, Einstein was enough of a Jew that a certain political party in Germany of the 1930's and 40's wanted to murder him. He expanded The Theory of Gravity to the very large scale,  or since Newton was an Anglican must I be an Anglican?

 

If you are going to assert, "ID is just creationism", it has EVERYTHING to do with what God you are talking about.  Talk about science and stop blathering about id and creationism and we can ignore which God we worship, but YOU are the one who brought up the subject of creationism, my friend.

 

You are just full of rhetorical tricks == you started the discussion on creationism, you post a one hour video, and immediately run away when I ask some pointed questions.

 

 

Anyone can assert anything. IE; I can assert the earth is flat, and provide Scriptures that "prove" it is.

 

So called Intelligent Design is Creationism. that is not mere assertion. I provided evidence from "Of Panda's and People" documenting proof that they are one and the same. Here it is again: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

 

Why would he or anyone else need to an expert in any religion in order to do science? Do I have to be an expert in LDS theology, something

I never claimed to be, though I am pretty knowledgeable about it, in order to understand how an automobile works? Tell me everything you know I have a minute. I reject specious claims by science and religion. IE; Lamarkism and Cockatrice alike.

 

Any posit of any God, Angel, Devil, Demon, or God, Angel, Devil, or Demon like force is not allowed in science. Simply because he/she/it can not be controlled for(a necessary thing) in science. I've given you this before but I'll do it again because obviously you were too lazy to read it the first, second, and third time I posted it. Let's say you are a good conscientious farmer. You want a better corn crop. You plant your corn the regular way in one part of your field, and add fertilizer to the other part. If you see, measure, any difference in your corn crop was it because of God, Angel, Demon, or the fertilizer? OTOH if you see, measure, no difference why go to the added expense to buy, and use, the fertilizer?

 

Why would it be necessary to believe in any God to have science work? Can a Hindu(They have about 2000 deities that make up God) not have an automobile work? Can a Buddhist(they don't have a personal God)? Since Jews don't believe in God the Son can they not have an automobile work? How about fly an airplane? That takes lots of science. Can anyone in those religion fly an airplane? The list of thing anyone of any religion beliefs about God, or non-religion can do is endless.

 

 

Established scientific organizations that reject Intelligent Design as science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

 

So called Intelligent Design is Creationism. The Creationist textbook "Of Panda's and People" proves it.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

 

The Dover v Kitzmiller court trial of Creationism taught in the public schools determined that so called Intelliegent Design is Creationism warmed over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric

 

I was merely responding to what you started.

Evolution And Bricks

Started by cdowis, A week ago

 

Here we're at post #144. Not what I'd call running away.

Edited April 17, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Anyone can assert anything. IE; I can assert the earth is flat, and provide Scriptures that "prove" it is.

 

So called Intelligent Design is Creationism. that is not mere assertion. I provided evidence from "Of Panda's and People" documenting proof that they are one and the same. Here it is again: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

 

Why would he or anyone else need to an expert in any religion in order to do science? Do I have to be an expert in LDS theology, something

I never claimed to be, though I am pretty knowledgeable about it, in order to understand how an automobile works? Tell me everything you know I have a minute. I reject specious claims by science and religion. IE; Lamarkism and Cockatrice alike.

 

Any posit of any God, Angel, Devil, Demon, or God, Angel, Devil, or Demon like force is not allowed in science. Simply because he/she/it can not be controlled for(a necessary thing) in science. I've given you this before but I'll do it again because obviously you were too lazy to read it the first, second, and third time I posted it. Let's say you are a good conscientious farmer. You want a better corn crop. You plant your corn the regular way in one part of your field, and add fertilizer to the other part. If you see, measure, any difference in your corn crop was it because of God, Angel, Demon, or the fertilizer? OTOH if you see, measure, no difference why go to the added expense to buy, and use, the fertilizer?

 

Why would it be necessary to believe in any God to have science work? Can a Hindu(They have about 2000 deities that make God) not have an automobile work? Can a Buddhist(they don't have a personal God)? Since Jews don't believe in God the Son can they not have an automobile work. How about fly an airplane? That takes lots of science. Can anyone in those religion fly an airplane? The list of thing anyone of any religion beliefs about God, or non-religion can do is endless. \

 

 

Established scientific organization that reject Intelligent Design as science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design

 

So called Intelligent Design is Creationism. The Creationist textbook "Of Panda's and People" proves it.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

 

The Dover v Kitzmiller court trial of Creationism taught in the public schools determined that so called Intelliegent Design is Creationism warmed over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric

 

Evolution And Bricks

Started by cdowis, A week ago

 

I was merely responding to what you started.

 

Here we're at post #144. Not what I'd call running away.

The bottom line here is about the idea of God being in the classroom. Its the good ol fashion battle between good versus evil. There is definitely a move to remove all mention of God and the Creator from all public view. Just recently Blake Griffin, NBA superstar for the LA Clippers came out in an interview and said he was a creationist. Some came out to say that it was unfortunate. This is and has been typical response lately. Everyone must choose who to serve though and we are all free to do so. The powers that be in the mainstream science ring have made it a point to have all out war on God. Centers like the NCSE are evil designs by conspiring men working as the devils advocates.

[thesometimesaint]

The bottom line here is about the idea of God being in the classroom. Its the good ol fashion battle between good versus evil. There is definitely a move to remove all mention of God and the Creator from all public view. Just recently Blake Griffin, NBA superstar for the LA Clippers came out in an interview and said he was a creationist. Some came out to say that it was unfortunate. This is and has been typical response lately. Everyone must choose who to serve though and we are all free to do so. The powers that be in the mainstream science ring have made it a point to have all out war on God. Centers like the NCSE are evil designs by conspiring men working as the devils advocates.

 

We have separation of Church and State in this country.

 

Neither Science nor Religion are evil. Though certainly both have been used to do evil things. Religion has done extensive evil even in this country to the LDS. I'm too young to remember polygamy but old am enough to have read extensively about what the Federal and State governments did to disestablish the Church because of religious bias against it. Science has been used by evil people for millennia, and until God returns in the flesh. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

 

I have no problem with people whom believe in Creationism. Let them worship how, where, when, whom, what if anything they please. As long as I'm allowed the same right. I really don't care, beyond a normal desire to see people become better.

 

Science has not declared war on religion. They've live happily together for millennia. Only when religionists make demonstrably false claims does science come in. The world is flat or it isn't, it didn't suddenly become round(slightly pear shaped) 2000 years ago. Men really have gone into space and landed on the moon. and we didn't find 6ft tall Quakers when we did. The sun doesn't have people on it. There are countless claims made by religionists that just aren't true. That doesn't mean that science is always right. but science is self correcting while religion is unerringly perfect, because it comes from God.

 

Again science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science for the reasons I've already stated. Moreover some 40% of all US scientists are Theist, including members of the NCSE. I am personally a scientist and a Theist.

[thesometimesaint]

Why do you even bother?  I'm weary of this.

 

Hope springs eternal. I'm not discouraged yet, but am fast approaching it.

[cdowis]

 

Science has not declared war on religion. They've live happily together for millennia. Only when religionists make demonstrably false claims does science come in.

 

I agree it is not science, but scientists declaring war.  Perhaps you should check out Dawkins' videos, especially on the Mormons.  No mention on science, he does not talk with LDS scientists, but spews out the usual antimormon garbage, the "demonstrably false claims" against religion and Mormonism in particular.

 

Listen to his discussion with Hawkin, especially when he is asked why he is conducting a campaign against religion. It appears that he had a difficult relationship with his father regarding religion and it's payback time.

Edited April 18, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

 

 

Why would he or anyone else need to an expert in any religion in order to do science? Do I have to be an expert in LDS theology, something

I never claimed to be, though I am pretty knowledgeable about it, in order to understand how an automobile works?

 

Read my post.  Already addressed that exact issue.  If you make the claim that "ID is creationism", then you need to know what you are talking about.

 

We are continually repeating ourselves.  Perhaps it's time to shut this down.

Edited April 18, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I agree it is not science, but scientists declaring war.  Perhaps you should check out Dawkins' videos, especially on the Mormons.  No mention on science, he does not talk with LDS scientists, but spews out the usual antimormon garbage, the "demonstrably false claims" against religion and Mormonism in particular.

 

Listen to his discussion with Hawkin, especially when he is asked why he is conducting a campaign against religion. It appears that he had a difficult relationship with his father regarding religion and it's payback time.

 

That isn't science either. Mr. Dawkins was being a jerk. BTW You'll find jerks in every profession there is on earth.

SEE Faith of a Scientist

http://media.mormonscientist.org/files/morm-sci-chap-2-faith.pdf

 

Ps. Thought you might like this.

http://www.mormon.org/me/5gzp

Edited April 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint