This website proves that god made this wonderful world and creation.

http://www.neonbubble.com/a/designed-by-god


































Now if your still reading this.





















Proof that even god would have to have its head examined.

:lol:

LMAO

I believe ID is approaching things from the origin of life standpoint whereas evolution picks up after life has already begun. That is why you often hear that ID can be compatible with evolution.

Choobus started the universe in his lab.

That means ID is in retreat.

I don't see an icon for, "You're smarter than that!"

Lurker... ID is a thinly-veiled attempt to inject biblical creation teachings into the science classroom so as to avoide the contention between Genesis and reality. It is nothing more.

You've heard that ID can be compatible with evolution? Where?

Use this one ---> :wall:

Except that some (many?) biblically-based religious groups oppose teaching ID in science class.

I've heard it many places. Don't know if it's "official" but then again who/what is the official ID spokesperson? Here's a link for ya.

here is ID headquarters

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...bus9/koran.jpg

Of course. It will be dead soon. 30 years from now there will be a new movement in the news with a catchy title.

yeah, a new title, but the same old bullshit.

I don't think it'll take 'em 30 years. It only took them a few months to come up with ID, and less that 20 years to work out the details, hornswaggle a couple of scientists, and get the pantload added to the cirricula of a couple of school districts.

Unless there's some major backlash against Christianity in the offing, I wouldn't be surprised if they were back with a new disguise for Genesis 1 and 2 with a new, catchier name in just a couple of years.

I thought abiogenesis was looking into the origin of life, and ID was trying to show through bad examples that neo-Darwinism is a baddy or something.

:lol::lol::lol:, Choob.

That's a good thing which just reinforces my statement.

Lurker, here is the "official" statement from the originators of Intelligent Design:

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas. - discovery.org

Note that they are placing the blame not on "change over time" (which is an intellectually poor definition of evolution), but on "neo-Darwinism". They then go on to misrepresent the core fundamentals of evolutionary theory by stating:

evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that .... stop .... they are quote mining here. They cite the National Association of Biology Teachers as saying, "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." by tacking it on the end of a very misleading statement.

Let's talk about the first half: Evolution is driven by multiple selection methods; one is natural selection. Sexual selection plays a part just as important. Note they narrowness of their definition; otherwise they couldn't make the next claim, that natural selection is "unpredictable and purposeless". Tell me, what purpose does an atom have? Why does no one complain that gravity is purposeless? Unpredictablility, in their sense is irrelevant. They are not, as you can see by the way they couch their words, referring to prediction in a scientific sense. Lurker, I'm sure you can see my point - purpose isn't a part of science, except at the application level, when things fall to the engineers, and even then we're talking material purpose, not some overarching need to infuse purpose in everything we do.

Regarding the quote from NABT, it is 100% accurate. There is no direction or goal to evolution. it is nonteleogical; no ladder to climb, no hierarchy of creatures evolving toward perfection. That's adaptation for ya. Whatever the geographical and environmental conditions, life will adapt. And that adaptation is explained using evolutionary theory.

Here you'll find a thorough refutation of Intelligent Design that covers the underlying motives for the invention of this pseudo-science.

Enjoy. :)

Chooobus, a ballsack hanging out of a tailpipe is the kind of photo we'd have to provide a signed model release showing legal age. Sorry, dude, but I had to delete it.