If you are going to continue to be intellectually dishonest, this debate is over. I do read your psots, thoroughly, or I wouldn't respond.
1. Nothing in any recognized version suggests anything of what you say. If you are not going to used a recognized version, say so.
2. Nothing in any form of Genesis comes clsoe to what you claim.
3. There is absolutely nothing in the archeaological archive that suggests anything in Genesis took place as listed. Feel free to try and list these "evidences".
4. And once again, there is absolutely no evidence of any design, within our own bodies or without. Evidence of ID? None. Evidence of Evolution without ID? Centuries of hard, physical data and fossil evidence.
5. I have never stated that science can disprove deity. It cannot. However, it does, repeatedly, disprove each and every myth and miracle in the bible. Again, feel free to list these "proofs" of yours.
6. "Some scientists" are the laughings tock of the scientific community, and their work simply does not stand up to peer review. Indeed, their "work" is termed a pseudoscience for a reason. Behe comes to mind, a scientist well steeped in ID who wrote multiple books on the subject, who gets absolutely Owned where ever he goes. Not a man with much common sences, his "Of Pandas and People" book was originally written as a creationist book, but an editing programs was used to change every instance of creation to "Intelligent Design".
Intelligent Design, quite simply, is an ancient theosophical excercise crafted by the very un-Christian Greeks, and was never meant to prove creation.
It was ressurected by Young Earth Creationists and Fundamentalist organizations in 1986 as a direct response to the SCOTUS case which kicked the bible and your god out of public school cirriculum.
It is a lame, failed attempt to attribute science to religion in a blantant and clear attempt to get Creationism back into public schools.
Trouble is, rational, thinking people who have any knowledge of evolution whatsoever, and accept simple scientific facts, don't buy it because we know exactly what it is.
Lip stick on Creationism.
If you are indeed reading my posts, you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. Perhaps this is partly due to a deficit in my communication skills.
6: You should understand that when I use the terms creation, creator, intelligent design, intelligent designer, etc... I am not supporting any persons -or their ideas or writings -who have also used those terms. I have purposely avoided reading about others' ideas concerning intelligent design and creationism. I do not support any ISMs -nor do I use the term "intelligent design" as a cosmetic for said ISM.
"Getting owned" is not the same as being incorrect (though the author of which you spoke may have well been incorrect in some assertions -I've never heard of him) -many absolutely correct scientists and other thinking men have been "owned" throughout history -some owned to death. Sadly, this was usually perpetrated by the religious -sometimes "Christians" (who, apparently, did not bother to actually read the parts about loving one's neighbor, proving all things, etc.). The pendulum has swung, however, and it is now the bulk of academia and the scientific community whose prejudices are being focused at the religious, etc... and who are being untrue to their own basic principles of scientific method and academic freedom in denying even the possibility that all that they might discover
was designed before it existed.
"Science insusceptible -Logic so inflexible" -I was just reminded of these Lyrics from the song "Synchronicity I" by the Police. The fact is that science and academia are just as susceptible as religion to being adversely affected by our human imperfections and tendencies. Most who have claimed to represent God throughout history have created such an aversion in the minds of modern rational men that it has affected their rationality! Most anything associated with the word "God" causes such an emotional response in some that they are not willing to honestly, open-mindedly, consider the subject. None of this actually has to do with God or the bible -but with those who claim to represent God or understand the bible.
Science and academia are also just as vulnerable to propaganda and politics -and being used as vehicles for such. Science IS the new religion. Where once (it still happens) the willingness of people to believe anything decreed by a church was used by political/military and other powers to achieve their goals (and vice-versa), science and academia are now used in exactly the same way. Science and academia have often "played the harlot" to political and other powers -and have also asserted themselves to affect politics, etc...
None of this is good for science, academia or religion -and it even weakens political and military powers (more on that later).
Consider such things as the Crusades -and the "global warming" issue. There is truth in God-given religion, and truth in science which is true to itself -but the truth is often buried or misrepresented to achieve certain goals. Scientists can be paid to lie just as religious powers can preach falsehood for gain.
So -let's try to look beyond all that. Science has allowed us to do wonderful things -but when it is not coupled with adherence to moral principles, it destroys us. I assert that adherence to the ten commandments is more important to humanity's well-being than scientific discovery. God exists -and the former commandments are far more important than the latter, but, for the sake of this argument -consider only the latter commandments. For instance: science split the atom, but adherence to the commandment which says "thou shalt not kill" would remove the possibility of our self-destruction thereby.
I have not proven to you that God exists, but this should provide enough common ground to move forward. At least consider, for now, the possibility that at least some things in the bible could have a positive effect, that what is asserted about the bible is not necessarily actually in the bible and that what is actually written therein -and its actual meaning -may be denied, even by scientists, due to preconceptions, prejudice, politics, etc.. rather than pure science.
It might be argued that moral principles do not require the existence of God, but the existence of the God of the bible would provide a path to universal adherence to such -which science and academia can not. If the God of the bible exists, he has purposed to intervene just before we destroy all life on earth -and to send his Son to rule on earth -to enforce and teach peace. Otherwise, it's a matter of hoping enough people get wise to the fact that we are not living a sustainable existence -and hoping that a very few men don't make the ultimate wrong decision for the rest of humanity. (Even if we avoid the ultimate stupidity, there is still the matter of the daily stupidity -not to mention extinction by natural causes -and no possibility of living beyond death. Some believe they can conquer natural death, but there are still accidents, etc.. to consider -and those who are already dead would just have been unlucky to not have lived at such a time. If the God of the bible does exist -it would be a good thing. Some have issues with what he has done thus far as described in the bible, but if can also make all things new -wipe away all tears -resurrect everyone and offer them eternal life in peace for the mere cost of obeying a few commmandments which assure that peace, you have to admit it would be pretty cool.)
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
