For Herepton and any others interested

Well, if you put it that way I guess there's nothing more to discuss.One thought though. That was somewhat gracious of you. I was expecting holy hand grenades flying my way

Thanks.....I must be running low on ammo or something.....Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Supporters of ID need to design experiments and define sets of observations which lead to the design conclusion indendent of the experimenter, which is the definition of objective. Only then can there be some assurance that the results have some actual correspondence to the real world.--Percy

again, since no one seems to pay attention to my last post, do you all assume a "invisible designer"?take a look up thread (message 9?) for the full post.

So what came first? The algorithim or the human mind that quantified and correlated the algorithim to fullfill its purpose?It makes no sense to me how it is so easy to believe that algorithims predated human wisdom and yet God evidently cannot logically do so.I guess what I am trying to point out is that IF math can be conceived to have existed before human wisdom, why not God?

That needs to be qualified. Specific forms of ID need to be tested, but we have an abundance of evidence for Intelligent Design already in the form of the physical world. The very fact the world exists and is designed, contains order and design, is sufficient evidence to infer a designer.Now, if you want to discuss evolutionary theory versus a non-evolutionary theory of the emergence and diversity of life, then there should be testing, as you point out, but keep in mind that much of science is based on inductive reasoning, and that there are not tests to date, I am aware of, demonstrating ToE.

The designer does not have to be invisible. That is an assumption based on the concept what constitutes humanity, but there are a lot of invisible things that constitute reality, and most people probably conceive of themselves as having parts that are invisible, such as the soul or spirit.

That there is no agreement on this only highlights my point, which is that the definition of objective experiments/observations are those where the experimenter/observer is not a factor in the subsequent conclusions.--Percy

The answer is simple. Imagine if tomorrow we have a thermal nuclear war and most people die instantly from the blasts and radiation. Few that are left are faced with a 2 year winter, which kills off most of the survivors. Around the planet, only a hand full of people are left. Because of this sudden change, almost over night society has been reduced back to the very basics. The judeo-christian god is forgotten. Allah is forgotten.Fast forward 5 thousand years from now. Another technical society has been built. People have rediscovered the hydrogen atom because no matter what happens the hydrogen atom is still there. People have rediscovered how planetary motion works because despite all the commotion the planets remained. People have rediscovered calculus and other essential math concepts for a technical society to exist.And I have no doubt that they will have rediscovered religion. The thing is do you honestly think it will be the judeo-christian god they will rediscover?Actually, you don't have to imagine the future. Just look back at history. Knowledge of the natural world (mathematics, astronomy, etc.) were discovered and rediscovered over and over after each collapse of civilization. The interesting thing is we almost never see the same god being rediscovered.The answer, in short, is the natural algorithms will always be there to be discovered, lost, rediscovered, lost, and rediscovered again. The invisible guy you claim to be behind the whole thing (aka Hank) won't be there the next time around.

well, duh. failing to protect your people tends to result in losing your job.

Monotheism continues to reemerge as does belief in the Creator. Now, it would take a special intervention of God to reveal the gospel and things like that if that knowledge was lost, but most the basic spiritual principles, things like sowing and reaping would be rediscovered, and God would, as He always does, reveal Himself to His prophets and people.Plus, it is doubtful that the knowledge of Christ will ever be lost.

I think you are wrong here. If all it takes is that the subjective opinion of a bunch of scientists to reject evidence means there is somehow no objective concensus, then imo, science has no real objective evidence whatsoever, and scientists are fooling themselves to think otherwise. It's more a popularity play.The simple fact is there is no objective evidence for rejecting the physical world as evidence of a Creator. All there is are arbitrary and illogical "rules" imposed on the evidence from a materialist philosophy that is completely outdated since the material world is shown to be fundamentally at it's root immaterial.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Say that everybody on earth dies off. Over time, everything is destroyed by the weather. An alien race stumbles upon this planet and finds a human blood sample frozen in the arctic. They use the sample to make humans and these humans are the first humans in 2 million years. Are you saying that through some miraculous thing the knowledge of christ somehow comes to these people?How is this natural?

TD, I don't believe Christ will allow that to happen.

Science is a concensus activity. In science, objectivity is attained through concensus, where concensus means that a preponderance of scientists are able to achieve the same results from a given set of experiments/observations.The task for intelligent design proponents is to define a set of experiments and/or observations whose results have clear implications independent of the experimenter. When a preponderance of experimenters obtain similar results, then a consensus can develop around which there can be confidence that it is an accurate reflection of reality.But that initial step of defining appropriate experiments and/or observations has not yet been undertaken, and until it is intelligent design will remain unscientific. Man has known since prehistory that the sky is blue, and we don't need science to tell us it is blue, but it can be demonstrated to any skeptic that the sky is blue by a simple spectral analysis. In other words, no matter how obvious it is that the sky is blue, to be considered a scientific reality it must have a scientific basis. So in the same way, if it is a scientific reality that the world is designed, then it must be possible to provide a scientific basis.--Percy