user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
They fail to mention any existance of Sleestaks, Pylons or Dopey the baby Brontosaur.
I think this is why some people have a problem with religion. It is this literal interpretation of the Bible that makes no logical sense. This literal interpretation is rather strange seeing as how much of the Bible is allegory or uses parables. The type of "logic" in this argument only serves to alienate people from religion and cause other people to think that these pro intelligent design people are nuts. There can be complexity of life evolving without the need of a God to design. The existance of God does not need this argument to prove it's existance.
So THIS is the I.D. concept of creation? Hmph, they can keep it... Much too simplistic. Not having studied their ideology, I had assumed their main thrust was that there was an Intelligence - God? - behind the evolution of all species, which I wouldn't have a problem with. But this is beyond science fiction. It's a scary fairy story.
Although I do prefer an intelligent God at the root of the equation, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense, but that's just me.
Why is it that intelligent design seems so unintelligent?
If mojo's synopsis is the root of the I.D. theory, then it's extremely and disappointingly unintelligent... nothing fits.
Not that I entirely buy the Bible's version of events. As I've believed for the last two decades, the Bible is the Word of God, as Written by Man. And we ALL know what Man turned out to be, both for better AND worst.
Boggling to the mind. Given that there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, why do these people have to go to such ridiculous lengths? 'Seven days' is an analogy. Surely anyone with a modicum of abstract thought can figure that one out?
Truthseeker: The Council of Nicea really stitched us up, did they not? Constantine was a real opportunist there, I think... did a lot of damage to what possibly was - very likely was - the truth.
It's just a way of making creationism sound more scientific--and, ironically, more plausible.
100% pure unadultered horse feces
I don't have a problem with it. I know that some may think I am ignorant but Darwin's Theory is just that a theory. Wasn't is just the theory of gravity until it became the law of gravity? Now if the missing link is discovered call me and I will reevaluate my beliefs.
However I think that God created something, realized it wasn't working and restarted. Hence the missing link.
I am not particularly fond of the name on the ballot I prefer divine/guided evolution. But it is a matter of faith.
Sounds ridiculous. An Intelligent designer sounds much more realistic
^I don't know about realistic, but it certainly sounds nobler.
Inteligent design in my opinion.
WOW. I didn't read mojo's description. I thought you are talking about the INTELLIGENT design theory. :--)
yeah thats what i thought at first Johan
There's a cartoon about these "theories".
Evolution:
Here are the facts. What theory can we find that support these facts.
ID:
Here's the "theory". What facts can we find that support this theory.
Which just goes to prove how little we really know, doesn't it?
The human race must be a constant source of amusement to our intelligent designer. ;)
|
|
