Everything I believe rests firmly on the realities revealed by my predecessors. Intellectual egomaniacs like Dawkins and Myers have no sources other than one another. Neither of them even mention Berg, Schindewolf, Broom, Bateson, Grasse, Punnett, Bateson, Osborn, Goldschmidt, etc, a veritable honor role of the best biological minds of the post Darwinian era. They also all happen to be devastating critics of the Darwinian hoax. How anyone can continue to support the Darwinian mindset can be explained only one way. Atheism must be a congenital disease. As a matter of fact we now have direct evidence for that conclusion. I refer to William Wright’s “Born That Way” for the documentation. Religious fanaticism falls into the same category.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein

I have repeatedly challenged these several enemies of the truth, called them out if you will. The response is that I do not exist just as my sources never did either. Furthermore they have banished me from their several bastions of bigotry in futile attempt to silence me. They are wasting their time.

Let the record show that atheism is intellectual cowardice, that it has never contributed anything of value to either science or society, that it represents the influence of that malevolent God which I have been forced to postulate once existed with the benevolent one.

We are all pawns in the evolutionary sequence, each predestined to his assigned fate. I am delighted with my Providence and I am thoroughly enjoying fulfilling it.

I love it so!

Feel free to quote me. I wish someone would.

Rev. David.

That part with the “biophotons” seems to me like a genuine pulp science-fiction. I’ve seen better, written by people that didn’t claim they’re scientists.

And Elijah and quanta… ever heard of Heissenberg? “Biophotons” should obey the uncertainity principle if they want to share that name.

Slovak Bloke

How you dare to say such a thing? Hawking is one of the brightest minds all over the 20th century. Even if he is wrong, why would God punish him? don’t you say that God is love?
I think that you justify everything that is of your interest in the name of God, whatever it is good or bad.

‘The scientific method requires that things can be proved. If something comes along that can be proven that overturn previous ideas this is accepted. In this discipline nothing can be taken as being absolute. This applies to all realms of science. In science doubt is good.’

Well, this requires elaboration. Technically, it’s not just about proof, as Thorsten pointed out. In fact, most studies are designed to rule out possibilities, not narrow the field down to one overnight. However, the scientific method does require one thing. That is the ability to be reproduced by any person anywhere, and achieve the same (or similar) results. Basically, any other person that repeats the same steps as described in the original study should come up with virtually the same results.

That’s the funny thing about the bible. You *can’t* set up any kind of test, except tests of faith. And even if you could create a test of faith that could be justified as science, you still couldn’t have another random person repeat that method and achieve the same results. It just wouldn’t happen. For this, I have plenty of proof. Just the existence of other religious structures in and of itself validates this point.

Oh, and I’m still trying to convince myself that this is a hoax, but I’m not so sure anymore…

-Rev.

Dream on!

Kazmer?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s important theories help us understand the historical factual events told in the Holy Bible. Can standard physics help us do this – heck no. It?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s time to abandon materialism.

Could it be that he also has no proof whatsoever to really prove the bible? It?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s time to abandon that fairy tale!

Do we test the idea that the sun will rise in the morning?

No, that it rises is proof enough. And we have enough FACTUAL DATA theat it will do so another few million years. But the bible ain?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t the sun. There?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s the high possibility that it?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s just a fairy tale. Read: Sun = Physical phenomenon; Bible = Unproven claims & rubbish.

the Frontline Science Institute, one of the most prestigious research organizations dedicated to Intelligent Design.

That?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s an oxymoron.

And he offers another theory that can?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t be scientifically proven. He?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s a looser then.

The German Guy
IMPEACH BUSH!

btw, would u still support the fetus’ rights if it was gay?

Baloney. The scientific method requires that theories can be falsified. That’s a vital distinction: Not to prove things, but to be able to disprove them. As attempts to disprove a theory fail and the theory is shown to explain the available observations well, that theory is strenghtened.
There is no “proof” in science – outside mathematics, that is – only well-tested theory that, in time, may be accepted as scientific Fact. Even Fact can be challenged when significant new contradictory evidence is introduced.

Science sure is nifty. However, ID is niftier. There are too many things science cannot explain. As a Pastafarian, I embrace ID. As several notable scientists have attested, Pastafarianism is just as based in science as “classic” ID, and thus if ID is to be taught in science class, Pastafarianism deserves to be taught alongside ID.
And remember: Our heaven has beer! And noodles.

I don’t thing that we should accept scientific theories to explain fantastic and science fiction stories.

I don’t know what “biophoton emissions” is. As math&physics student i know that answer is not in metaphorical abstraction but in equations and measurements. If equations fits results of measurements and observations we can bring some metaphor. But metaphor itself cannot act as proof. You must understand that words like “seed”, “the God particle” is metaphor used by men, influenced by his imagination. But i know how important is connection of things based on word similarities for uneducated STR people.

In this light, ID is victory of metaphor over correctness.

Would you say the same thing about Terry Schiavo, I wonder?

Intelligent Design is supported by those people that have firm religious beliefs. They view the truth of God as being absolute. This lies outside the realm of proof. The presence of a guiding intelligence is not something that can be proven. It is something that has to be believed in and taken as fact at face value. As such it is not a scientific theory but merely an extension of a belief system.

You cannot use scientific principle to justify ID, no more than you can use religious faith to support the theory of evolution. Note that evolution is a theory, not a proof. Its the best thing that anyone has come up with to explain the observations that does not rely on a leap of faith.