The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum

To CK and Jar, I am completley new here and if I understand your question. You are looking for some objectivty and evaluation of evidence. I recently left the Forum on the PBS website, because they closed and locked it. I was in discussion with Pandasthumb and others., you might be familiar with his website, or whoever it is. If its objectivity and debate Im your man. We were in a discussion of ID as Science and what it involves. I am A creationist/IDer of course. So if you in agreement with this, lets get started. Actually Proof, fact and evidence, is exacly what I am looking for here.. As I said I am new, so if this this is not the thread I need to be on let me know.D Bertot

Easy enough, that task is so simple it doesnt require to much effort as you will see. Im curious about your request that I not mention the word EVOLUTION at times in the discussion, it is of course quite silly to ask this, due to the nature of the discussion. you fellas certainly have no problem mentioning Creationiost and ID in every other sentence. Dont worry though my establisment of ID will be stricly on the basis of Science and those definitions.. Im hoping you fellas or gals will understand the concepts involved in Polemics alittle better than the others on PBS. One thing I will give them credit for is that they are very eloquent and very knowledgeable of scientific theories and concepts. However, as some once said, "300 pages of crowded fact can confuse the very elect, but reduce it to a 3 line sylliogism and it will lay open the bare bones of the argument"., The Warren-Flew debate, 1978.Also are you saying I need to stay here or open a new thread somewhere else. While I have been debating these issues for nearly 35 years now, I am a knot-head with this internet stuff, walk me through this please.D Bertot

To admin. Thanks for the invite. I did not realize I already had 3 messages in just a few minutes. I clasify myself as a Creationist/IDer because the age of the earth is of little or no intrest to me in the dicussion of Cr/ID as science.. I have no problem of course believing in the Genesis acount as 24 hour periods and a old earth, due to what we call the Gap thoery which I pretty much accept. If however, I am wrong about the Gap theory and the earth is only 10 to 30 thousand years old, Im fine with that as well. I of course believe in God and the Bible as his Word, but in my mind it has no bearing on the issue. The establishment of a designer or possible designer as science simply does not rest with that item. I will of course discuss these as I go along.D Bertot

To jar. To begin the ball rolling (I guess), I greatly beg to differ, when you say, "So far as I see there is no way ID could even be imagened as science".. This being the case maybe you could provide me with what you consider as the definition of Science. Also, I sometimes write in uppercase, simply to illustrate, not be rude.Further, it always helps in these discussion, if you identify yourself, as Atheist, Agnostic, Non-theist or evoulutionist, etc. So I will know how to formulate my arguments and responses.I guess this starts the ball rolling. I dont really know how this thing works. I will wait for you reply.D Bertot

Sorry I think I am responding to your old message before I get the new one. I think I got it now, I hope, Sorry. Will hitting the NEW TOPIC category, take me somewhere else, or will we stay here.D Bertot

Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?D Bertot.

Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?

[quote]Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?[quote]

quote:

---

Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?

---

Just practicing here sorry