[sebbysteiny]

As much as I disagree with the notion of 'god', I strongly believe people are entitled to their beliefs. If people want to believe in god, good, and if they want to believe in creationism and ID, that's good also.

I have no problem with ID in theory. However, if bible bashers want to try and brainwash youngsters into taking the tried and tested theory of evolution that has explained every question ever posed about the shapes and abilities of life off the school science sylabus and replace it with 'god created every animal as it is now', then I will be their biggest openent. I find the way that such people try to force ignorence and doctrine upon the young 'to give something back to Jesus' utterly repugnant.

Such relgious ideas have no right to be on the science sylabus.

Whatever your thoughts on ID, I'm sure everybody here can all agree on that.

[KickAssClown]

And one thing that is true above all other things on this debate: lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence, not support for one theory. ID has no evidence but is compatible with the literal teaching of the bible, modern science has a mountain of evidence proving, among other things, the literal teachings of the bible to be wrong. Take your pick.

You misunderstand, and make assumetions regarding the content of my character. I need not take my pick, as they are information, irregardless of the source, and what I am interested in is Information. I don't want a answer, I want a question.

I mine theorys, right or wrong, for ideas, that may lead to new ideas and new insights. In science you never prove anything right, you only prove that it is plausible. It is often the case that the major Paradigm has edged out a given theory or point of view which years later proves to be absolutely right.

As far as Religious based ideas go, this one actually has a plausiblity factor. It actually explains somethings. It may not explain what it means to but I have already looked at one thing that was put forth by a ID ?theoritician?, that yeilds an odd sort of insight into human history, which is a science albeit a soft one.

Keeping in mind that the Bible for me is a piece of fiction, and that I do not believe in the various Creation theories, not even the popular ones like Big Bang snafu.

Also keeping in mind that the best lie is the truth it self, and the best fiction arises from the factual. One can learn things about early human history, by study of the various ancient religious texts.

I believe that Man may have realized the concept of time 10,600 bc roughly, and I come to this conclusion from a ID observation, which would not have been made by a "hard" scientist. Innovators do what they do not because they know it can be done, but because they don't know what is possible.

River of Time

This is going to mean nothing to anyone whom is not accepting to alternate methods of analysis, that arise through irrational reasoning. As the human race is a collection of mostly irrational beings I choose to keep all senses open for interesting tidbits.

[Buffy]

Move along folks, shows over. Open new threads if you wish.

Post Police,
Buffy