Revision as of 22:54, March 23, 2007 (view source) Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 22:58, March 23, 2007 (view source) DunsScotus (Talk | contribs) Newer edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)		:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article.  [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
	== General ==		== General ==

---

Revision as of 22:58, March 23, 2007

Arguments

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. DunsScotus 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. DunsScotus 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

With a kick butt secret hand shake too! Tmtoulouse 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. DunsScotus 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

General

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. Tsumetai 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --Horace 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --John Galt 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. Tsumetai 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? Harpie snark 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Perhaps you could start with the list of reasons above, not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. Tsumetai 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper conservative sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. Harpie snark 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. Tsumetai 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. Order 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. Order 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --MoeLarryAndJesus 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"notable"?

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --Mtur 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --MoeLarryAndJesus 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --MoeLarryAndJesus 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

two issues=

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). Miles 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. Tsumetai 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The Theory of Intelligent Design

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --Horace 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. Tsumetai 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. WJThomas

Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is also a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present evidence that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. Opacic 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

BCE

how come BCE isnt allowed?

Because it really means Be-Coming Evolutionsists! --Cracker^talk 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Other Intelligent Causes

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --Order 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. Miles 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --Order 20 March

Conservative's "factual error"

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:

• You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
• You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper

Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --Mtur 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-AmesG 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. Tmtoulouse 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

This should not be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. MountainDew 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The footnote shows there have been more than one article. Conservative 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Lies makes baby jesus cry. Tmtoulouse 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:User:myk Myk 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. MountainDew 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be unlocked. ColinR^talk 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

To Conservative: calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. ColinR^talk 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

what is wrong with this sentence?

Recently, there has been articles which defended the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [1]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Conservative 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. Tmtoulouse 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Aside from the grammar, there have not been articles, there has been one. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. ColinR^talk

Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [2] DunsScotus 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Those aren't peer reviewed articles. ColinR^talk 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. MountainDew 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --Mtur 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

fun reading Tmtoulouse 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.Murray 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology. Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician’s View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000). (HTML) Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe's arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are "a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who ...are appalled that Darwin's explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences." Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program--a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason "[m]ajor improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself." Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information. Four science articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004) (hereinafter DEBATING DESIGN)

Dembksi, W.A., The logical underpinnings of intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 311-330.

In this article, Dembski outlines his method of design detection. In it he proposes a rigorous way of identifying the effects of intelligent causation and distinguishing them from the effects of undirected natural causes and material mechanisms. Dembski shows how the presence of specified complexity or “complex specified information” provides a reliable marker or indicator of prior intelligent activity. He also responds to a common criticism made against his method of design detection, namely that design inferences constitute “an argument from ignorance.” Bradley, W. L., Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 331- 351.

Walter Bradley is a mechanical engineer and polymer scientist. In the mid-1980's he co-authored what supporters consider a seminal critique of origin of life studies in the book The Mystery of Life’s Origins. Bradley and his co-authors also developed a case for the theory of intelligent design based upon the information content and “low-configurational entropy” of living systems. In this chapter he updates that work. He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems—a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design. Behe, M., Irreducible complexity: obstacle to Darwinian evolution, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 352-370.

In this essay Behe briefly explains the concept of irreducible complexity and reviews why he thinks it poses a severe problem for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection. In addition, he responds to several criticisms of his argument for intelligent design from irreducible complexity and several misconceptions about how the theory of intelligent design applies to biochemistry. In particular he discusses several putative counterexamples that some scientists have advanced against his claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems demonstrate intelligent design. Behe turns the table on these counterexamples, arguing that these examples actually underscore the barrier that irreducible complexity poses to Darwinian explanations, and, if anything, show the need for intelligent design. Meyer, S. C., The Cambrian information explosion: evidence for intelligent design, DEBATING DESIGN, Pp. 371-391.

Meyer argues for design on the basis of the Cambrian explosion, the geologically sudden appearance of new animal body plans during the Cambrian period. Meyer notes that this episode in the history of life represents a dramatic and discontinuous increase in the complex specified information of the biological world. He argues that neither the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations nor alternative self-organizational mechanisms are sufficient to produce such an increase in information in the time allowed by the fossil evidence. Instead, he suggests that such increases in specified complex information are invariably associated with conscious and rational activity—that is, with intelligent design. Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum. MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).

This book contains fifteen scientific and philosophical essays supportive of the theory of intelligent design written by Ph.D.-level scientists and philosophers. The book was edited by William Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.’s, one in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and one in philosophy from the University of Illinois.

Conservative 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --Mtur 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --Mtur 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. Tmtoulouse 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! DunsScotus 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? Myk 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--CWilson 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --Mtur 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--Murray 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of Charles Darwin (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. DunsScotus 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

why aren't you counting this?

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Conservative 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. Tmtoulouse 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Would The Fortean Times be acceptable? --Cracker^talk 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? Conservative 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Impact Factor

No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. Tmtoulouse 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? Conservative 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. Tmtoulouse 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, Nature. DunsScotus 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the secularist publications and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --Mtur

Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? Conservative 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. Tmtoulouse 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal nobody reads is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. DunsScotus 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it journal does not equal science journalTmtoulouse 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. Conservative 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. Tmtoulouse 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid Conservative 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-AmesG 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. Tmtoulouse 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. Miles 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" DunsScotus 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationists

Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-AmesG 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science can be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --Cracker^talk 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of inferable truth with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. DunsScotus 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: falsifiability. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. DunsScotus 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

So much for God not being the author of confusion. --Cracker^talk 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well he is the source of translation error in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. Tmtoulouse 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)