A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

You did not answer my questions.I will repeat:We will be able to make predictions about future genetic movements with ID as a guide?Please provide some examples of these predictions.You are claiming that an IDer exists. Provide evidence.You are claiming that ID is scientific. Provide a Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design, complete with positive evidence, testable hypotheses, and potential falsifications.Schraf: Because we can explain a POSSIBLE naturalistic model means that it is not IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, an IDer does not HAVE to
be invoked. That is the argument from ignorance again.John Paul:Imagination is no substitute or evidence. "just-so' stories are best kept for fairy tales and such.They are POSSIBLE naturalistic scenarios, which may or may not pan out. What they have going for them is that they actually make TESTABLE PREDICTIONS, and also are POTENTIALLY FALSIFIABLE. They have nothing at all to do with fairies, or Gods of the Gaps, or magical, unknown IDers.It is a VERY LARGE LEAP between saying "we don't know how this happened" to "an IDer HAD to be responsible for this."Once you attribute something to an IDer, then why bother trying to figure out how it works?On the same note; what happens if, 100 years down the road, scientists figure out how every single one of Behe's examples of "irreducably complex" systems could arise by natural means? What will you do then?
(there has already been great progress on some of them, such as the evolution of blood clotting)Creationists/ID proponents do not provide POSITIVE evidence, and this is what is required. They use the GAPS in our knowledge and then say "SEE? That which we don't understand PROVES that there MUST have been a designer." Can't you see anything wrong or lacking in this, logically?schraf:Behe's God of the Gaps just assigns "Godidit" to that which we don't understand yet. History is packed full of science eventually explaining what people (religious and otherwise) previously thought was unexplainable and *had* to be caused by a higher power.John Paul: That is not what IDists or Creationist do. Why do you misrepresent us? We observe the specified complexity that is life and
attribute it to something other than nature acting with time.But all of the examples of "evidence" that you use (which isn't positive evidence at all, but gaps in our knowledge) for this IDer consists of unexplained naturalistic phenomena.If you want to say that life is so amazing and wonderful that you feel that "something" had to be behind it all, that is a nice philosophical or religious belief, and that is perfectly fine.However, if you are going to start talking about science providing evidence for such beliefs even though you provide no scientific theory, no positive evidence, no testable hypothese, and no potential falsifications, then you are living in a made-up, pseudoscientific fantasy land.

schraf:
I will repeat:We will be able to make predictions about future genetic movements with ID as a guide?Please provide some examples of these predictions.John Paul:
I gave you a link. Do I have to read it to you?Using ID to Understand the Living Worldschraf:
Provide evidence.John Paul:
We infer an IDer exists by the specified complexity that exists in living organisms. That, coupled with irreducible complexity & minimal function, provide ample evidence.Falsification would be to show that life could be produced via purely natural processes. After that you would have to show irreducible complexity is nothing of the kind and minimal function is irrelevant because every possible point mutation (and combination of) allows that amino acid chain to keep functioning.schraf:
Once you attribute something to an IDer, then why bother trying to figure out how it works?John Paul:
Because it is up to us to maintain it. Duh. My car was designed but I am sure glad other people figured out how it works. The same goes for every system man has designed. I debug computer systems for a living- at all levels. I didn't design the systems (although I could and have designed circuit boards) but the point is maintenance is a valuable part of life. Without out we would have to build many more items because things do break down. How expensive is it to buy another a car other than to replace spark plugs?I apologize schrafinator but it is obvious you are clueless about ID. There are ID websites where you can read about it.ID ThinkAccess Research NetworkThe International Society for Complexity, Information and Design(read the archives in that one)Discovery Institute: Center for the Renewal of Science & CultureI find education is the best way to cure ignorance. If you read the articles of the aforementioned websites and still feel the same way you do about ID, at least then we will have something to discuss.John Paul: That is not what IDists or Creationist do. Why do you misrepresent us? We observe the specified complexity that is life and
attribute it to something other than nature acting with time.schraf:
But all of the examples of "evidence" that you use (which isn't positive evidence at all, but gaps in our knowledge) for this IDer consists of unexplained naturalistic phenomena.John Paul:
Just because you say it isn't positive evidence doesn't mean much to me. Just like you attributing life and its diversity to Mother Nature acting with Father Time and some as yet unknown (unexplained) naturalistic phenomenon- Wow, the Un-Holy Trinity is born- explains absolutely nothing.Are you just upset because you belong to a small minority of people that believe life has no purpose? And that now scientists are beginning to figure out that were there is form and function coupled with specified complexity there is design. It upsets you that ID will make it into the science classroom doesn't it?The un-holy trinity. LOL! The ToE is a religious faith afterall.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-31-2001]

I am back, I know I said I was leaving but with these new site features how could I resist? (talk about sucking up). Anyway, I have been doing a lot of research on evolution (really I have) and after reading over my posts from before I actually found I was laughing at myself. Anyway, sorry for any of the stupid insults and I'm quite sure that I probably never offended anyone anyway (how could you be offended by that crap?). I am a new me, pretty much the same person as before but I won't be jumping to conclusions so quickly, if I post at 3am I'll make sure I still think about it and will try not take such naive interpretations of everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Provide a Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design, complete with positive evidence, testable hypotheses, and potential falsifications.

---

Well, it's kinda a touchy subject this one in the light of science, since well, if there is an ID then it is out of our limited understanding of science. That does not mean one can not find evidence for intelligent design if one so wishes to look.But anyway, here goes...if there is an ID than you'd probably find his designs to reflect intelligents (damn, since I'm the one making the post I guess we're not off to a good start). One thing I do enjoy is mathematics, so all these sites here I find quite enjoyable. Please, just like I have taken the time to go through the sites you gave to me (really I did), I hope you do the same. Try really getting an understanding of the maths behind it, once you've got a good grasp of it you can find countless things that reflect these number pattern (strangely especially in the Bible). Here goes:My favourite
The evidence is almost scary
Lets not bite into the forbidden fruit to much nowIf you take the time to check it out, I consider that to be "positive evidence". If you really want to delve into history, mainly the Jews, testimony of the ID from the Bible is almost unnavoidable. I consider the forfilling of prophecies to be evidence.On that same train of though, "testable hypotheses" should be found in other prophecies. Find one, study it, then see if there is evidence to prove the "hypothesis" to be a theory, or even the prophecies to be a fact. You won't be dissapointed. As for "potential falsifications", well, I guess that's where you come in. Good luck! BTW, I no longer would consider evolution to be dissaproving an ID. Also, if the book of revelations isn't forfilled then I guess that would be a falsification. But don't get your hopes up, as that could not be forfilled for hundreds, thousands, even millions, perhaps billions of years yet. I'm sure if you go looking for this ID, you'll find him (I'm talking about really searching to, like search harder than you even thought you could even possibly imagine searching for something, what are you to be afraid of?).

Hi, Retro!Kudos for reading up.Independent of arguments for and against Intelligent Design, it is already well established that numerical relationships exist throughout nature (eg, much of physics is just math). We must ask ourselves what conclusions should be drawn from the discovery of mathematical relationships for which there appear to be no underlying physical explanation, such as the ones described at The evidence is almost scary. Even if the mathematical relationships described at this site are as accurate and amazing as purported, what would it mean? Would it be an indication of intelligent design, or a hint at an underlying and as yet undiscovered physical relationship?It's also important to look at the claims carefully to check for accuracy. Here's the table from that site's overview:

Planet	Distance from the sun in km (000)	Distance where Mercury equals 1	Period where Mercury equals 1
Mercury	57,910	1.0000	1.0000
Venus	108,200	1.8660	2.5490
Earth	149,600	2.5833	4.1521
Mars	227,940	3.9365	7.8101
Jupiter	778,330	13.4399	49.2714

It then goes on to claim these relationships for distance:

( Earth ⁴ / Venus ³ ) + ( Venus ³ / Earth ⁴ ) = 7

( Mars ⁴ / Earth ³ ) + ( Earth ³ / Mars ⁴ ) = 14

Earth * ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 ) = Jupiter

There's no pattern in these relationships. First look at the first two equations. It's interesting that values for Earth/Venus and Mars/Earth are very nearly integer values of 7 and 14, and that one is double the other, but the value for Venus/Mercury, which the author conveniently ignores, is 12.2, while that for Jupiter/Mars is 534.8782. Plug these values into a table and it looks somewhat less than amazing:Further destroying any pattern is the relationship drawn between Earth and Jupiter, which uses an entirely different equation. Also, the number in his table for the distance of Jupiter divided by the distance of Mercury is 13.4399, but if you do the math it's actually 13.4403. 13.4399 is the value obtained from his Jupiter/Earth equation. Given that the distances one uses for the planets can be fudged somewhat (the orbits are elliptical) I think he's fiddled with his numbers a bit to make things all the more amazing.It is pretty amazing that this equation holds:

Distance of the Earth = Period of Venus * Phi

But this next equation is so far off that maybe there's a typo:

Distance of Mars = Period of Earth * Diameter of Venus' Orbit

The problem with the above is that the right hand side is 4.1521*2*1.866 which equals 15.4956, not 3.9365.But typo or not, the much bigger problem with these relationships is that they aren't continuous. If the distance of Earth is related to the period of Venus by Phi, then why isn't the same true for Venus/Mercury, Mars/Earth and Jupiter/Mars. Not to mention all the other planets.Given the number of mathematical operators and the huge number of measured values in nature, it's easy to find coincidental relationships that might seem amazing. The relationships described at this website don't apply consistently to all the planets, and so likely do not relate to any underlying physical reality. And how such relationships support ID is not clear either.--Percy

​

Hi Percy,

​

I'd like to commend you for analyzing the planetary relationships presented at solargeometry.com, and help you
to better understand what you have mistakenly stated to be typographical errors or "fiddling" with the data.

​

The relationship shown as "Distance of Mars = Period of Earth * Diameter of Venus' Orbit"
(see Page not found - Solar Geometry) is as follows:

3.936458 = 2.037661 * 1.931852

​

When you represented it as "4.1521*2*1.866 which equals 15.4956, not 3.9365," you did not take into account the square root of either term. The square root of 4.1521... is indeed 2.0376... and the square root of (2 x 1.866) is 1.9318.... The results are exact if you use the full decimal representations of each planet's orbital parameters. It would appear that you missed the meaning of the square root symbols shown as .

​

I'm not the author of this information, only the developer of the web site, and I can assure you that none of the data was "fiddled with." Before deciding to do the site from material shown to me by Mr. Bennett, I audited all the data and, to add credibility, I chose to clearly show the variances between Mr. Bennett's Solar Geometry measurements and those presented by NASA. There is a difference, as you noted, between the two values as it relates to Jupiter, with the Solar Geometry distance in relation to Mercury being 13.4399 while that shown by NASA is 13.4403. These and other variances are shown at Page not found - Solar Geometry. The ratio of the two Jupiter values is only 0.99997, a difference of .00003. NASA's published values for Mercury and Jupiter only go to 4 and 5 significant digits, so any calculations done with their numbers cannot be assumed to give any more accuracy than 4, or possibly 5, digits. The distances per Bennett and NASA could be the same for all we know.

​

You've made an interesting application of the Bennett formulas to other planets, but I disagree with your conclusion that there is no significance in these relationships just because they do not apply universally to all planets. As an example, the proportion known as the golden section (1.6180339887...) is found again and again in the human body, the dimensions of DNA, the spirals of sea shells, etc. but yet there are certainly other proportions in life and the universe that do not embody the golden section. Would you say, by analogy, that all the golden section relationships have absolutely no significance just because not everything in the universe is constructed with them?

​

Thanks for the discussion!

Wow, this board is really getting some intelligent members. I might be a a little out of my depths just by being here.Anyway, I know this isn't proof to most people, but it sure does convince me there's some ID out there. It goes a little something like this:1 + 1 = 2What? You expected more. Well, I guess I'm a little different to most people, but I think you can't get any more possible evidence than that right there. Just really think about it. For there to be laws which governs the universe concludes there is an ID. Take a game like football for example, what makes football football? It's not just the having of all the physical equipment that makes it football. Using the equipment you could make countless games of football. But what is it that makes all those diffent games unique, what is it that makes it a certain type of football? Of course, it's the rules. Now, I ask this question, why are there those rules, did it just happen, or did some person(s) think about it, using intelligence and devised those rules? It's the latter and everyone knows that, so why should the universe be any different? It's not just a matter of having the right equipment to build a house. You can't just drop all the equipment in a pile and go look, we have a house. No, not at all, you have to DESIGN the house. When I look around at everything in the world, I see design, simple as that. I was watching an evolution show about extinct animals the other night and I was both surprised and confused when they said, the sabre tooth tiger (sp?) reflected incredible design. Huh? I know evolution doesn't propose it happened by absolute random chance. Evolution, or no evolution, there is still design and believing design without a designer is baffling. It has absolutely nothing to do with using a God to explain away gaps. If I get a pack of 52 cards, I don't expect to just throw them up in the air and it to land formed as a house of cards. If I want it to get it to that state I would have to design it, then purposefully place everything in the right order to form that house of cards. I notice alot of evolutionist keep saying that there is no real difference between non-life and life since it is all just the same chemicals. Well, to me, I see a big difference, its called design, they can't be just grouped together in any old order, it all needs to be quickly and purposefully placed. Its the same reason with something dead, you have to ask yourself, why is it now dead? Would it be because its design is now disrupted? A lot of science acknowledge things are designed, so how did that design get there without a designer? Some people just put it down to the laws of the universe got it that way, then you must ask yourself why are there designed laws of the universe without a designer? I see the laws of the universe to an ID much like the hand is to a human. A computer does not just put itself together, just like an ordered living structure doesn't put itself together. It is governed by those laws, just like the way you form stuff with your hands. Trying to dismiss an ID straight off the mark is like a creationist approach to evolution. It's a vert adequate hypothesis and I think it should be treated with the same respect as everything else in science. Not just looked at as people yelling "goddidit", there's a lot more to it than that.Anyway, for me, you'll never be able to prove there is no ID, as it is something I already know. Just like you can't tell me 1 + 1 doesn't = 2.

Hi, PhiGuy!You are indeed correct, I missed the square root signs in that last equation while punching the buttons on my calculator - thanks for pointing that out. But this was not why I thought the data in the table was "fiddled with." That was because 778,330/57,910, which is the normalized distance of Jupiter using Mercury's distance as a measuring stick, is 13.4403. But the value given in the table is instead 13.4399, which is what one gets from the very equation about which the amazing relationship is claimed:

Earth * ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 6 ) = Jupiter

That's not to say it isn't an amazing relationship. Like you, I consider the difference between 13.4399 and 13.4403 insignificant. But still, the normalized distance for Jupiter in the first table is wrong, and the incorrect value in its place is suspiciously that yielded by the very equation about which the relationship is claimed.I think Retro asks the right question, and it can be placed in a planetary context: Why look for relationships involving only some of the planets when physics provides equations that describe all of it? For example:

F = Ma

F = G (m₁m₂/r²)

For velocities near light speed there are relativistic versions of these equations.So, what does it mean that the orbital motions and alignments of all planetary bodies can be described using a consistent set of mathematical relationships? Is the mere presence of a mathematical relationship sufficient indication of an IDer?--Percy

​

You're not giving yourself enough credit, RetroCrono. As it's said, "genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple." Your insight into the rules that both define and illustrate design is the key.Consider the words of Stephen Hawking:

​

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

​

Stephen Wolfram, regarded by some as the next Isaac Newton, is using his theory of cellular automata to redefine science as we know it with an underlying structure of rules, and has shown Gould's work on evolution to be in error. (Wolfram article in Forbes) (Recap)

​

Life is not a mere assemblage of the right compounds or proteins. It's a dynamic system, with unparalleled precision in design, of interdependent systems (circulation, locomotion, respiration, ingestion, reproduction, MORE)and even the best Miller-Urey experiments produce nothing like DNA or even the molecules that hold DNA's more complex amino acids together. You could put a frog in a blender and have not only all the essential proteins for life, but complete cells that surpass any dreamed of by abiogenesis theory. What you won't have, however, is life.

​

I now agree with your comments about design being obvious, but, in my own experience, it's only obvious once you have an awareness of the Designer. I was an agnostic who was highly cynical towards anything religious or spiritual, until I had experiences that I could only rationally explain by God's existence. This opened the door to putting all my preconceptions aside and studying everything from scripture to science with an open heart and mind. While I'm only the developer of the Solar Geometry site, I am the author of several other sites which I hope will challenge people to deeper pursuits and understandings of life's origins and purpose. You mentioned two of my sites on ID above (Evolution of Truth and The Phi Nest), but in the end it's not who has the best theory or logic that unveils the truth. It's having an experience that gives you a personal awareness, understanding and appreciation of your Creator. That's a transaction that can only take place between each of us and God, but I've tried to share my personal insights and experiences in a site called "Snapshots of God." It goes beyond the question of ID, but why debate whether there's evidence of design when you may be able to meet the Designer Himself?

I would have to say you leave me in no less than , aww. Very well said Phi, I applaud your insite. Nothing short of, Amen.

---

PhiGuy writes:
Stephen Wolfram, regarded by some as the next Isaac Newton, is using his theory of cellular automata to redefine science as we know it with an underlying structure of rules, and has shown Gould's work on evolution to be in error. (Wolfram article in Forbes) (Recap)

---

The Forbes article was interesting, but a bit fawning, don't you think? I'm sure Stephen Wolfram is brilliant, but isn't stuff like "He demolishes some of the foundational theories in many of the fields" a bit over the top?Perhaps Wolfram has identified an error in Gould's doctoral thesis on seashells, but isn't the traditional place to point this out in journals of evolutionary biology rather than interviews in financial magazines? Shouldn't the scientific community have the opportunity to review Wolfram's work? Is Wolfram perhaps taking his arguments to the public because of ongoing resentment "at how his theory [on cellular automata] was being perverted" in the scientific community?It might even be possible that either the interviewer or Wolfram or both have misunderstood Gould's doctoral findings. Contrary to the description in the Forbes interview, this excerpt from a Gould biography states that Gould's work did not find support for the view that natural selection is responsible for shell shape:

For his doctoral thesis he investigated variation and evolution in an obscure Burmudian land snail, anchoring his later theorizing in intense scrutiny of a single group of organisms, as Darwin had done with Barnacles.

​

At one point, he hoped to find correlation between variation and different ecologies within the creature's range, but the snails' sizes, colors and shell shapes seemed to vary quite independently of local environment. Impressed with the importance of nonselectionist factors in evolution, he also became interested in structural constraints: How slight changes in one feature must alter several others within definite limitswhat Darwin had called "correlation of parts."

You offer a good summary of the argument from design:

---

PhiGuy writes:
Life is not a mere assemblage of the right compounds or proteins. It's a dynamic system, with unparalleled precision in design, of interdependent systems (circulation, locomotion, respiration, ingestion, reproduction, MORE)and even the best Miller-Urey experiments produce nothing like DNA or even the molecules that hold DNA's more complex amino acids together. You could put a frog in a blender and have not only all the essential proteins for life, but complete cells that surpass any dreamed of by abiogenesis theory. What you won't have, however, is life.

---

There's little to argue with here, but how do you progress from the subjective impression of design to objective evidence for design?--Percy

The ID espoused by the author of "IDthink" and that espoused by the denizens of "ARN" are quite at odds with one another. The 'fellows' and administrators of ARN, and its subsidiary CRSC, are quite obviously young (and a few old) earth creationists that are actively deceiving the public with their scientific sounding rhetoric.Since creationists often declare that disagreements between evolutionists is indicative of some major problem with the theory, I submit that because IDthink and ARN espouse quite different versions of 'ID' that, therefore, ID is in crisis as a weak hypothesis and is not scientific. Indeed, the host of IDthink in fact claims that, at best, only a "suspicion" of ID is warranted. One has to wonder then why he goes to such lengths to prop this notion up...As for the notion of no 'junk' DNA, this is 'technically' correct - just like creationists are 'technically' correct when they say that the appendix has a function. It is the correlaries drawn form these technically correct claims that cause the problems. Creationists say that because the appendix does something, it cannot be vestigial.Creationists also claim that because 'junk' DNA does something, it cannot be 'junk.'
It has long been known that most DNA has some function. It now appears that large amounts of that function in non-coding DNA is primarily in maintaining the structure of the chromosomes. As such, large scale changes within this DNA has no known impact on the function of the organism. Even in intronic (non-coding) DNA, relativeley larege scale insertions and deletion events have no consequence. (see, for example, http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignment1.htm).So, while 'junk' DNA may serve a (many?) function(s), it is also fairly clear that it has no (known) impact on phenotype.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Anyway, for me, you'll never be able to prove there is no ID, as it is something I already know. Just like you can't tell me 1 + 1 doesn't = 2.

---

You display an attitude that is all too common in creationist circles. There is nothing to convince you that you are in error. How could you be? You KNOW you are correct.

​

So whay are you participating on a discussion board, if you already KNOW that 'ID' is true?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]schraf:
I will repeat:We will be able to make predictions about future genetic movements with ID as a guide?Please provide some examples of these predictions.John Paul:
I gave you a link. Do I have to read it to you?Using ID to Understand the Living World[/QUOTE]That is a poor link. I saw this whole farce when he posted it at ARN about 2 years ago. The funny thing is, the article he claims to have found only due to applying his 'teleological perspective' actually shows up in about any possible combination of search words regarding proofreading in Medline (which he used). Since he thought about this while writing an essay on translational proofreading, it stands to reason that he actually had prior knowledge of the article he claims not to have known about. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.Of course, lets just say that he really did not know about that article. Let's just say that he thought about the issue and then did a lit. search and found what he was looking for (which he did). The whole thrust of that article is that the concept of ID can guide research, not that ID is a scientifically valid premise.
But says the author:"Of course, someone could argue that these researchers did not need ID. But that response would miss the point. "Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...To find stuff that had already been 'discovered'...And this is uspposed to impress sceptics as to the usefullness of ID? Doing lit reviews? Whihc are done anyway when beginning an experiment?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
/B]

---

I visited Wofram's website. He seems very much a mathematician/physicist. I tend to be sceptical of any biological claims made by such individuals.
As you say, the Forbe's article seems a bit silly - more like the gushings of a school girl going to see the Beetles in Shea Stadium than a story by a 'professional.'
I would like to point out - 'cellular automata' has nothing to do with cells in the biological sense, in case anyone didn't see that...
Of course, of interest was this (from the article):"He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you understand it, it's actually very simple."Doesn't all that ID-frindly to me...Also of note - the author of the article seems to focus on evolution (or at least Darwin and Gould, and at least in the last page and a half...). Shouldn't be a surprise considering the conservative nature of the magazine.

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-02-2002]

quote:

---

You display an attitude that is all too common in creationist circles. There is nothing to convince you that you are in error. How could you be? You KNOW you are correct.

​

So whay are you participating on a discussion board, if you already KNOW that 'ID' is true?

---

Obviously you have no idea of my beliefs, I don't think anyone really does, not even myself. As of this point I believe the Bible to be true. I've never ever classed myself as a creationist as I disagree with many of there points. I'm not in this "common circle" of I'm in "no error". Once again, obviously you don't know me, in recent times I've admitted myself to be wrong, I'm sure there are others on this board that could tell you the same. If I find myself in error and come to realise so I'm usually the first to admit.Next, this discussion board is not about whether there is an ID or not, but much more than that. I could ask the exact same question to you, if you know there is no God then why do you participate in this discussion board? See the useless reasoning here. If you want to attack my arguements go after the body of it, not just the little bit of crap tacked onto the end. To me an ID is obvious, perhaps not to you, but it is for me. I gave you a small proportion of why I think so (there is a lot more reason as to why I do, it's just hard to explain, but I'll get there) and you don't seem to be able to rebut it so I guess that must hold true at some level as of this point.It's obvious though from your posts you have no interest at arguing the topic at hand but rather the emotions held by us finite thinking people. You seem a little to caught up in the emotional side of all this, believe me, it's not worth it (speaking from experience). Just because someone disagrees with each other on an ID doesn't mean you dismiss it. Should we dismiss absolutely everything that has a contradictory view by another? Of course not, so start trying to follow the line of thought that has been presented. We were really getting some where on discussing this topic, probably the best I've seen it presented at any board, keep the big picture in your sight and don't let small indescreet (sp?) details get to you. Good luck. ;-BTW, there is an edit button, I'd suggest you use it as quadruple posts seem a little excessive.
)

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 01-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 01-02-2002]