Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, May 12, 07:38:48pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: I don't think that Author: Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 07/15/04 12:57am In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "They sure are." on 07/14/04 5:24pm >True, but ID doesn't look nearly as implausible to me >as an orange instantly turning into an ape. Obviously not, but it is not the _most likely_ explanation of the data. >>As we've gone over and over on this >>board, our common ancestry with apes is supported by >>various branches of science, and is by far the best >>interpretation of the evidence as a whole. > >That's a bit open to debate. Note, for instance, the >apparently dismal track record regarding fossils and >human evolution. I haven't heard any dismal scientists in this regard. Apart from Chick Tracts, where are you getting your information? >>So you can think that an invisible creator created all >>these things with the _appearance_ of being related to >>each other when they actually aren't > >And you can think that nature using invisible and >unknown processes created life with the _appearance_ >of being designed when they actually aren't. Slow down, there. I thought we were talking about human evolution and the common ancestry of humans and apes. I said nothing about how life began, and that is still not the topic under discussion. Basically, you can simply look at apes and humans and see that there is very likely relatedness. Then you can take DNA tests and discover that we are more related to apes, according to DNA, than we are to any other creature on earth. Coincidence? Again, if we are not related to apes, then someone or something has gone to great lengths to make us think that we are. If this is the case, perhaps instead of "Intelligent Design," it should be called "Deceptive Design." >You see, I can play the same game too. Who >said the creator was invisible anyway? Christians generally do. Do you assert that the creator in which you believe is _not_ invisible? > Modern ID >theory does not make any claims about the designer. >We can tell if something is designed even if we don't >know by whom. Oh, can we? So if you happened to look at the quantum world, full of uncertainty, would you assert the opposite... that we can tell when something _isn't_ designed? Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Okay. Wade A. Tisthammer 07/15/04 10:11pm That's simply science -- Damoclese, 07/16/04 8:31am You old softy. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 08/12/04 5:43pm Harding Place -- Damoclese, 08/15/04 11:56am A rock...quite a bit more stable than hominid fossils -- Wade A. Tisthamjmer, 09/13/04 12:09am More on Deceptive Design Theory -- Ben, 07/16/04 3:05pm What's deceptive about it? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 08/12/04 5:57pm here's why -- Damoclese, 08/15/04 7:21pm That's not what I was referring to -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 09/12/04 11:51pm And a little more -- Damoclese, 07/18/04 7:08pm And more -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 08/12/04 6:04pm When were the laws of Mathematics started? And why? And how? -- QUITTNER, 08/13/04 1:30pm reality check -- Duane, 08/23/04 1:05am Re: reality check -- QUITTNER, 08/30/04 12:55pm Duane -- grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....., 08/31/04 7:25am Interesting "explanations" -- QUITTNER, 08/31/04 1:37pm whoops... -- Duane, 08/31/04 10:25pm Interesting explanations -- QUITTNER, 09/ 3/04 2:28pm Why post at all? -- Ben, 09/ 3/04 7:10pm I agree -- Duane, 09/ 7/04 7:51am ...of little substance -- Damoclese, 08/15/04 12:01pm Ingoring the substance -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 09/13/04 12:17am Hitting the Bottle -- Damoclese, 09/13/04 1:23am Of substance -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 09/14/04 3:48pm Substance abuse -- Damoclese, 09/14/04 10:29pm One quick comment -- Duane, 09/13/04 10:20am One quick reply -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 09/14/04 4:06pm A strange admission... -- Duane, 09/14/04 4:59pm