buzsaw

Stop heckling. You asked and I answered your question honestly and forthrightly. Move on.

Your comments here, as I understand them, miss my point, concerning what we observe here and now about, for example, the human being's physiology or that of any given animal species. We know that certain organs, brain and nervous system functions, glandular systems and sexual complexities, et al, must be in place and functioning simultaneously together for the body to live and do what we observe it to be doing. Whether we are special or teleologically designed for a purpose, or whatever, a whole lot of complex stuff must be in place, functioning simultaneously for the propagation and survival of the species. Imo, ID fits the ticket nicely. , It's an illogical, unfair and, imo, unscientific analogy to compare the relatively simple possible senarios of a living human's life events to how a highly complex living being came to exist. We human designers usually design and make/create things for our purpose, will and/or pleasure. So with the Biblical designer in creation according to the Biblical record. Revelation 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power; for you did create all things, and because of your will they were and were created."

That it slanders and maligns me and millions of my ideological friends irritates me. You didn't answer my question concerning it.

Post precisely what you want me to focus in on and we'll talk another time. Bed time for me. So long.

You like that quote don't you, bud? How many more warning points do you think that would get me if I posted it repeatedly, slandering evolutionists? Hmm?

I read the first link you posted above this one on ID. Obvious bias, imo, there by the establishment representatives currently in place in the National School Boards Assn. The other links are nothing but vague unspecific links. Isn't there something in the forum guidelines about posting numerous links with nothing specific specified? I read the guidelines. Do you?

Look up "science" in your dictionary and I believe you'll see that there are scientific aspects of creationism. That creationists interpret much of what is observed scientifically and geologically differently than you people, doesn't mean we don't do science. Would you agree to that?

Come, let us reason together, my friend. What percentage of secularists would you estimate to be creationists?

I've posted how it has some scientific merits, such as compatibility with certain laws of science, et al. Did you read that? Did you check out my EvC debate with admin Jar? Please remember, I'm not claiming theory status, but an hypothesis, Would you regard creationism as an hypothesis?

1. I didn't start the ID thread, in the evo forum. Someone else did, so as to bash ID creationism. Somebody needed to refute, so I showed up. 2. Not at all. It's that I got my first warning negatives soooo easily and frankly, I'm quite paranoid about getting more.

How many secularists believe in creationism? Though some creationists are evolutionists, my understanding is that evolution arose from secularist thought. 50 years ago few creationists were evolutionists, so far as I can remember.

No. Exercising some genuine Christian humility. I don't buligerently and dogmatically insist on my viewpoint as though I have eye witnesses and am willing to admit that I may be mistaken in some aspects of my ideology, unlike how big bangers and evolutionists often act. I guess that's what each reader must decide for themselves as we all post our stuff. Thanks for your viewpoint. At least someone's reading me and responding.

Thanks very much, MF, for going to the work and time to explain as you have in a kindly manner, especially your comments pertaining to my item one question. I do go on the old Newtonian ideology, but seem to get in hot water, using it in science forums. Imo, modern mainline science uses at least some of the illogical relative physics like some of QM to tiptoe around the tulips in the garden of the scientific unknowns.

Thanks Phi. I feel more comfortable posting, with it being moved out of science, since that seems to be how most perceive it here.

As I've stated before, my understanding of the reading of the Genesis one record is that since the sun was not created until day four, the sun being what determines the days after day four, likely the first four days, including the day of the sun's creation were an undetermined length of time as the length of these days were not determined by the sun. God's spirit is the spirit of light, as well as the agent which God sends forth to do things in the universe, so my thinking is that the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit provided the light before day four. The record says he was there present and working to effect the creative processes however they were done and however long it took. Only God knows that. So far as the age of the earth, verse one simply states that whenever the earth was created, God did it. Since the sun and moon were finished some time in day four, I believe days five and six were sun regulated days and that the birds, fish, animals and mankind were made in two literal days. I suppose the revolution (revolving) of the earth could have began slowly, or some other unknown during those creation days with special arrangements by God for that. Again, only God knows and we can speculate. Nothing set in stone, so far as I am concerned. I do not think evolution is the answer and nobody will ever convince me that they were given what we know so far. Imo, there should be all kinds of fossil evidence of such, if it were the case.

Imo, it would be more fair to the respondee and helpful for the reader if you'd use the quote button to designate who you're responding to if you combine your responses to more than one member in one post, Mokele. I don't appreciate having my stuff mixed in with that of others without reference to who's being quoted. It's especially difficult for readers who've not read the thread and who do not have time to do so. If not, at least please consider separate posts for separate folks. Fair enough? Not at all. This is a poor argument I hear very often by secularists. There is no basis for your argument at all. The Genesis record specifies that work was done by the multipresent spirit of God, with no designated period of time involved, according to my hypothesis, which does not hold to a 24 hour day on the first four days of creation. It also states that work was done by God on every creation day, including day six when Adam was made from the dust. That he has the wisdom, ability and energy to make a man in a day and to introduce the breath of life into it by his life giving spirit does not make him a liar for not doing it as secularist finite earthlings conceive it to have had to have been done. Obviously, if a higher power/energy than ourselves observe on earth exists and who did it, no deceit would have been intended. I'm not saying you should believe it, just like you shouldn't expect us to believe the universe could emerge from a singularity point, generate life abiogenically and all come in place eventually by natural and random processes. This thread is about ID. Why should you not expect counterparts to post on the basis of ID ideology? Do you think secularists should just be able to debunk the minority viewpoint without the right for a minority thought response? Is that what you want........a lecture board here where majority viewpoints are lectured exclusively? I did not claim to have won any creation/evolution debate here, now did I? Please document. I did post that I had refuted some false statements by some members here. Big difference! "Repeatedly?" Exactly how many times, Mokele, was I specifically warned about confusing abiogenesis with evolution here? How many bonafide "red herrings" by buzsaw in this forum can you cite, Mokele? Please, either document or withdraw these charges!! For sure, you're not winning. All you're managing to do is irritate, malign, smear and belittle a fellow member who has a minority viewpoint. As I stated it was not falsifiable, nor did I claim it to be, yet at EvC it was acceptable for debate as an hypothesis relative to scientific thermodynamic laws. Nothing more, nor did I claim it to be more.

Buzsaw/Jar Great Debate at EvC: Go to Google and search "buzsaw jar great debate." When you access the first link, it brings you to the last page of the debate. Click page one to begin.

Well here goes. I hope if my responses are not suitable for science, the mods will simply move the thing or advise rather than suddenly sock me with warning points or ban me. Though I don't personally think all the harmonized complexity of everything from DNA to the organized and complex cosmos can be achieved by natural processes without a designer, I'm not going there with my argument. My statements are as follows: 1. So much of what we observe in life seems to require most of the functions of the complex organism to be in place and complete for the survival and propagation of the species........things like imune systems, sexual propagation, antioxidants........on and on we could go. 2. Add to the above, the positions and solar system distances, gravity, earth atmosphere and such must all be precisely in place for the above to even begin to happen. 3. Add to the above, imo, even ID must meet the first law of thermodynamics, in that all energy existing must needs have had to have eternally existed. My buzsaw hypothesis calls for an eternal almighty designer having eternally existed and having been eternally creating, destroying, changing and managing things in a boundless spaced universe according to his will and desire. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT BUZSAW IS NOT A YEC!!) It also calls for a host of intelligence existing in the universe, beings which are not visible by the human eye just like other energy which has been discovered to have always existed, which mankind has been unaware of until the scientific capability has been achieved to detect this energy. We who are convinced that we have discovered the existence of this energy the spiritual realm if you will cannot prove to someone not connected and who has not experienced it personally. It being intelligent has the power to reveal it's existence to those who are willing to receive it. That's all I want to say about the higher ID dimension here. I've said it in as near of a scientific way that I know how. 4. Most of what is observed, if created in tact by a designer would of necessity be created with the appearance of age as per the age which the big bangist and evolutionist would calculate. Take for example, the sun. If it was created on day four of creation, as the Genesis record states, it would have had to have been created fully developed, in tact to the degree that it will function for planet earth as it is since it was created intelligently in tact. I understand the protostar stage of the sun would have been around 30 million years. Then after that stage, I would assume it would need more time/age appearance, likely at least a couple of billions of years, to become sufficient to do what we oberve it to be doing for the solar system for the sustenance of life on earth. The bottom line is that it certainly would look far more aged than a few thousand years. Also, Adam and Eve and other complex life would have, imo needed to have been created with the appearance of age in order to survive and propagate, according to the Genesis record, from which I base my hypothesis. I did a great debate over at Percy's EvC (Evo vs Creo) board a year or so ago with one of the moderator evolutionists, in which I clearly won, showing that my buzsaw ID hypothesis not only satisfies the universe's scientific 1st ltd, but the 2nd and 3rd as well. The admins pshawed it as a nonevent and it wasn't long before I was suddenly permanently banned without warning after having never even having had a temporary suspension in my 2+ year sojourn there and around three thousand posts.

I would have some apologetic points to make in the defense of ID here, but as I understand the forum guidelines, if I say what I want to say in response, I may be jeopardizing myself with more negative points. You are being allowed to debunk ID here, but I'm not sure whether a substantial ID apologetic response would be allowed in this science forum.

If this question is ok for this thread I'd like to address the void. 1. If the earth were the only object in a void, I'd call the void "unbounded space." Do you agree? If not, why not? 2. I'd also say the void/space would have no properties capable of it's expansion. Yes or no and why or why not? 3. Would gravity be a factor in either of the above problems?